User talk:NihonGoBashi
It is very interesting that I have been blocked as a "sockpuppet" when this is my only account. Wikipedia editors who do not agree with my edits can block me as a sockpuppet because of my behavior when there is no evidence. That is pretty scary and against the ethos of a neutral encyclopedia.
Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)- I only have one account and am not associated with any of those accounts that I am accused of operating. I find it surprising that I am blocked based on no evidence or what I consider to be extremely circumstantial "evidence." NihonGoBashi (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
NihonGoBashi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I only have one account and have not engaged in any sockpuppet activity. Blocking someone as a sockpuppet based on "behavior" is circumstantial evidence at best. Is this what Wikipedia has come to? NihonGoBashi (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It may very well be that this is your only account, but that only makes this meat puppetry. When you engage in the same actions as a blocked user, you will be treated the same whether you actually are that user or not. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
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.
Meatpuppetry implies that I am related to other accounts. I am not. Therefore, I strongly protest this block and declaration of meatpuppetry when I am innocent. This behavior of seasoned editors is highly suspecious and unbecoming of a neutral encyclopedia that Wikipedia is supposed to be.
NihonGoBashi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been accused of meatpuppetry based on vague and circumstantial evidence. I am not related to any of the other accounts mentioned and this comes as a shock and surprise to me. Something very fishy is going on. NihonGoBashi (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Simple denial is insufficient. You need to address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceForeverLife. Yamla (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
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.
NihonGoBashi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been accused of meatpuppetry and being related to or coordinating with ScienceForeverLife and associated accounts. This could not be further from the truth as I have no knowledge of these other accounts and have never coordinated with them. Maquardtika has cited that my knowledge of the RfC process is suspicious simply because I am a new account. This invalidates many Wikipedia users who have observed how Wikipedia works for many years and simply decided to finally contribute with a username account rather than an IP address. Editing Eugene Gu's biography does not make me a meatpuppet. I have an interest in BLP policies of neutrality and Eugene Gu's biography came across to me as having a Controversies section which was highly unusual. For this reason to be labeled as a meatpuppet is clearly highly circumstantial and not based on any evidence. This sets the precedent for any senior Wikipedia editor who has many connections and friendships with other senior Wikipedia editors to abuse the CheckUser process. This dangerous precedent should concern all within the CheckUser community since abuse of power is anathema to a neutal encyclopedia. NihonGoBashi (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Between the reiterations of denials previously noted as insufficient and the increasingly evident battleground mentality and failure to assume good faith it is abundantly clear that the time has come to revoke your access to this page as we're just not going to get anywhere. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
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.
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Daniel Case (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)