User talk:Techtrek

I have now seen four posts of yours where you have accused

User:JamesBWatson, ok let us clear this once and for all and if you think my arguments are not fully valid, I will not accuse him again until further evidence is available. Before the article was protected many IP editors were fighting over it. Some of them undid my edits. King Col who is editor of this article was not participating then. As soon as the article was protected and IP editors were not able to edit King Col started editing. I know I can not hold some one responsible for not using a dummy reference list. But I am suspicious that both editors are using references in talk pages like they are used in articles instead of links in bracket markup format. Who puts links into references tags on talk pages when you can just put links directly? This is a mistake I have not usually seen as a long time reader of wikipedia and on this article I only saw it by these two editors. There is ofcourse the matter of same motive. Is this not enough? If you think so, I will trust your judgement. --Techtrek (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thanks for explaining your reasons more clearly. I'll try to have a look at it when I get time (probably tomorrow) and see whether I agree. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 19:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok thank you. --Techtrek (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have long thought about what to do about your complaint on my talk page and ultimately decided a block was justified, for the following reasons:

• There is no recent vandalism by Ol King Col, and you have not provided any evidence of vandalism. Thus your accusation is a personal attack.
• You have not meaningfully contributed to the talk page discussions and have not addressed other editors' concerns about the content and factual accuracy of your changes.
• What you say about Ol King Col stepping up their edits to the article after I semi-protected it to stop the IPs from edit-warring could just as well be said about your own efforts. You've been at least as much of an edit warrior as Ol King Col.

In summary, you've tried to win a content dispute by getting the other side blocked and/or your preferred version protected. That won't work, and it's highly detrimental to a collaborative editing environment. If you think this block is in error, you can contest it via the methods laid out in the

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Techtrek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked as check user block and on my AN3 report that I filed against an editwarring IP, the admin has said I am a sock but they have not explained whose sock I am? I do not have any previous user accounts on wikipedia or any other user accounts on wikipedia. I understand that using multiple users on same topic is not allowed but I have not done so. If you still think that I have done this, please explain which user are you accusing to be mine so that I can defend my stance because I am sure I have no other users.

Decline reason:

Take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Techtrek/Archive which explains which socks you are accused of operating. PhilKnight (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.