User talk:Andrew Stevens Barkley

|style="width: 50%; border:0; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"|

|}

|}

{{tmbox

| style = background: #f8eaba;

| image = 55px

| text = This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of {{user19|Indiasummer95}} that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{tlx|unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

}}

{{unblock reviewed | 1=I am not a sock. I have not vandalised any article. The changes I made to Islam Awareness Week were furthered by the senior User:GiantSnowman, and the allegations were made by a sock. Explain how I have been abusive/disruptive. Andrew Stevens Barkley (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | decline="I am not a sock": If a user's assertion to the contrary were that all that was needed to lift a sockpuppetry block, we might as well not have a sockpuppetry policy now, would we? "I have not vandalised any article.": The behavior of an account accused of sockpuppetry is ireelevant beyond the extent to which it establishes a connection to the alleged sockmaster. "The changes I made to Islam Awareness Week were furthered by the senior User:GiantSnowman ...": Indeed they were; that doesn't let you off the hook. "... and the allegations were made by a sock.": As before. It doesn't matter who they came from if they turn out to be substantial when investigated. It is worth noting here that even though [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_Awareness_Week&diff=577682113&oldid=577588715 a sock of another blocked user first made the allegation], the formal investigation was initiated by another user who I know beyond a doubt is not a sock. "Explain how I have been abusive/disruptive.": Um, by socking in the first place? To sum this up: Game, set and match us. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed | 1=Blocks should not be used:in retaliation against users;to disparage other users;as punishment against users;or where there is no current conduct issue of concern. WP:DNB I have done absolutely nothing of concern. You are acting so paranoid. I shared editing of two pages which were edited by a user who had edited 2,000 pages and had a confrontational style. And you justified it by saying that I edited at the same time of day? Andrew Stevens Barkley (talk) 6:53 pm, Today (UTC+1) | decline=The block has not been issued in retaliation, as punishment, or in the absence of a conduct issue (said issue being abuse of multiple accounts). There were rather more factors involved in the blocking admins decision than the temporal similarity of edits. Since the unblock request does not address the reason for the block, I am declining it. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed|What if you leave me to just make minor edits on non-controversial topics and not make any discussion on talk pages or user talk? Like I have just been doing... Andrew Stevens Barkley (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)|decline=You're a checkuser verified sockpuppet of a blocked user; you'll need to request unblock for that user. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)}}