User talk:Albert Sumlin

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Albert Sumlin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Black Panther Party. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand from the page I just read that I am responsible for convincing administrators that blocking me is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. I am unaware of any complaints about my contributions here, and the reason given for blocking me ("Block evasion: sock of user:Herschelkrustofsky") is Greek to me. My contributions have all been wholly constructive. I can not imagine how anyone could consider them damaging or disruptive.

Decline reason:

See Below. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:42, 26 May 2010 (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.

This obviously isn't a new account. If this isn't HK then please disclose your previous accounts. If any admins have questions about this block then please email me. Will Beback talk 04:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a new account, it's over a month old. I have no previous account. What exactly did I do that prompted so much hostility? Albert Sumlin (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hostility. This is a routine enforcement. Will Beback talk 18:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of what? Do you do this to everyone after their first month of editing? How do I get my normal status restored? Albert Sumlin (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and it says that being accused of being a sock is a virtual Catch 22, where you have no way of proving innocence. All I can say is that I have had no previous account. I also do not have "minimal edits" ("Reviewing admins will usually defer to the blocking admin in a sockpuppetry-based block, especially if the sock account has minimal edits.") I would point out that my edits have been responsible, constructive and well received. I am at a loss as to what triggered this accusation against me.

Decline reason:

We're not stupid. a) You come into the same pet articles you always go to, b) you make the same arguments in the pet articles that you always do, c) you use a name that has the same initials as a few others you have used, and d) you make the same "woe is me, how dare you treat a new user like this" argument that you make every single time we block one of your socks. Smashville^talk 15:23, 28 May 2010 (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.

I feel like I have blundered into a production of Arthur Miller's "The Crucible." Once you are accused, there is no defense, including innocence. This is a very strange place. Albert Sumlin (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are unblocked. Franz Kafka's The Trial might be a more appropriate metaphor. A Checkuser block would not have been productive for technical reasons. Although it is claimed that a pattern of behaviour is exhibited, the proper venue for that is WP:SPI, where an independent administrator would be able to review the totality of the evidence presented. Bear in mind, please, that I am not exonerating you from sockpuppetry, merely stating that the evidence against you is so weak as to raise a reasonable doubt. It may be that my decision will be countermanded on the basis of better evidence coming forth, but that's not a matter for me right now. Rodhull andemu 23:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I haven't read "The Trial," but I'll put it on my list. It seems that I am still blocked, however, because of an autoblock put on my IP because I used it to create "The late Mr. Sumlin" with which I posted on the administrator board. But I believe that block to be temporary. Albert Sumlin (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of information now made available to me since I unblocked you, of which I was unaware at the time, I have reversed my decision and reblocked you for block evasion. I am convinced beyond doubt that this is the correct course of action to pursue, and you are of course able to pursue this in the usual way. However, I and other editors will feel free to reveal this technical and behavioural evidence provately to the Arbitration Committee, if required. I've no doubt this will end up on Wikipedia Review, but then, I need a good laugh right now since I learned today that a former girlfriend of mine died almost a year ago, and nobody told me. In the light of that, sockpuppetry here is an unbelievably selfish luxury. Rodhull andemu 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Your message provides a suitably incoherent ending to this bizarre saga. Having followed the link and read the plot summary, I agree that "The Trial" is a better analogy than "The Crucible." Albert Sumlin (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, either ask for unblocking or don't. It's unlikely to be granted by any Admin, on the evidence made available to me, so I advise you email ArbCom if you have a real issue with this. Rodhull andemu 22:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]