Because CU evidence proves you have repeatedly edited logged out in violation of your topic ban, and your actions recently logged in; I have no choice but to conclude that you have no intention of abiding by your topic ban. As such, I have blocked your account indefinitely, with the first year being logged as an Arbitration Enforcement sanction. Courcelles (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you even use CU to investigate me? I told you who I was. I've never tried to avoid scrutiny. It's overkill. Seriously. Doctalk08:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I think WP:CHECK applies in circumstances like these: CheckUser data may be used to investigate, prevent, or respond to... Legitimate concerns about bad-faith editing. Check it. Unfortunately the little comedy you played with IHTS attracted attention. I mean, it attracted mine, and I'm nothing-so imagine what it said to the higher echelons...? Anyway, good luck. >SerialNumber54129...speculates09:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've hunted and busted so many actual bad-faith users that needed CU. I've created SPI reports. I never thought I'd have a CU run on me and be blocked. It's surreal. Doctalk09:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who Davey2116 (talk·contribs) is, or why they are possibly tagged as a sock of me. Absurd. I am the last user to sock around here. Coffee (talk·contribs)'s "behavioral evidence" is 100% wrong. This is not okay. You're gonna get a lot of cases cleared with this one. Doctalk11:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course making accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence is a serious personal attack; I'm not sure if a CU got done on Davey. But above, @Courcelles: (pinging for clarification?), says that their CU block only concerns editing logged out-no mention of the Davey a/c, and I'm not sure where the connection came from? >SerialNumber54129...speculates11:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, Coffee has made the connection by themselves. I don't see what behavioural evidence links Doc and Davey except the AP2 editing area. I certainly don't see any evidence of an actual CU doing anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should actually open up a ton of cases for scrutiny. The idea that I have socked is absurd to anyone that knows me. Doctalk11:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Now can we move my block back to where it was before the false sock puppetry nonsense? Two weeks, I believe? I did't do anything to exacerbate the original block for the topic ban violation, and I accept the original block without complaint. Doctalk13:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the blocking admin, but I'm confident that the above mistaken identity had no influence on the length of your block, especially considering that that block was placed some 34 hours after yours. —DoRD (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that my block was extended from two weeks to indefinite solely based on this sock allegation, which has been disproven. My indefinite block (for alleged socking) should be vacated, and my original block of two weeks (for a topic ban vio) should therefore be reinstated forthwith. Doctalk15:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no, you're not fooling anybody with that one. Your block had absolutely nothing to do with the Davey account that was blocked yesterday after your indef. ~Awilley (talk)15:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any edit after I was blocked for 2 weeks. I don't know who Davey is, or why my block should be extended when I made no edits to justify any block extension. Doctalk15:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, your indef had nothing to do with Coffee's block of Davey. You have chosen to flaunt your active sanctions, both logged in and not, this is the consequence. Courcelles (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made no edit after my block. You falsely used CU and then extended my block for no good reason. I wasn't disrupting anything between my block and your railroading. Doctalk15:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The Davey account block had nothing to do with Courcelles' block of your account. There were simply behavioral similarities, enough to cause me to believe your accounts were the same. Given that Courcelles and I did not communicate prior to their block of your account nor my (erroneous/removed) block of Davey's (which happened over a day after the block on your account), they are very clearly not related. I'd recommend you utilize the standard offer and just leave without socking for 6 months. Other than that, don't try to lie to administrators about why you were blocked. It definitely won't help your only chance in 6 months time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "trying to lie" to anyone. What does that even mean? I also don't think that "simply behavioral similarities, enough to cause me to believe your accounts were the same" is good enough to run a CU. I seriously hope this goes beyond me. This is very concerning. Doctalk16:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have confused Davey2116 with Davey2010. Regardless, Courcelles states he found evidence that you edited while logged out to evade your topic ban-violation block, not that you created a new account to evade your block. Also, re-reading his block rationale above, because your actions while logged in indicate you have no intention of abiding by your topic ban. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More surprising to me than the CU was the determination that I was proven to be linked to that account. It makes me question how accurate the entire CU process is where I never did before. Doctalk07:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the only reason I edited logged out to begin with is because I had sworn to never use my account again when I got banned from post-1932 American politics. I thought by making it clear that it was just me not logging in because I was protesting, I would clearly show that I was not socking. Then my computer just logged me in like it normally does. It was a lame promise to never edit as me anyway. Cheers. Doctalk08:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The CU did not link you to Davey2116; User:Coffee did that on behavioural evidence only, and it turns out he was wrong. Courcelles linked your named account Doc9871 to the IP you used while editing logged out. He performed the check-user to confirm it was really you and not an impostor. The ban from post-1932 American politics applies to you as a person, not to the named account, so you were in violation of the topic ban when you edited while logged out, same as if you had logged in. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc9871. And you say this even though we had some hella big disagreements back in the day! Anyone can try to improve their on-wiki behaviour using the pledge at Wikipedia:Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values. As a Canadian I find #3 especially easy, as Stephen Colbert jokes, “I'm sorry” means both hello and goodbye in Canadian. We are actually pretty hilarious that way. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was afforded the SO when I was blocked. After six months of not editing, I'm surprised at how little I miss it compared to before. I didn't set out to commit "suicide by admin", but I obviously knew I was on the razor's edge. As always, I bear no ill will towards any WP editor doing their job in good faith. The only ones I ever disliked here were the vandals and trolls. Cheers, and thanks especially to the editors who made sense of this place for me. Doctalk14:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Small ListMug.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Small ListMug.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Johnwaynegacypogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Brudos j.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
