User talk:LaVidaLoca

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Mea culpa[edit]

I have submitted identification to Lar which establishes that I am a different person than Wildhartlivie. Any actions I undertook on Wikipedia were my own and were not connected to, on the behalf of, or in the stead of Wildhartlivie. I created the account Soup's On, Mister and posted with that account. What I posted was basically copied and reinterated comments made by other unrelated accounts to another editor's talk page. The comments were merely parroting those comments and were not reflective of my own attitudes. I sent that editor an email, not from Wikipedia, that also reflected that content. I did that because that editor pushed and pushed and basically pissed me off to the point I wanted to repeat what obviously upset and annoyed her. That she chose to engage in conduct that pushed and picked at people that was designed to piss people is her onus. I'm sorry I took action that ended up reflecting badly on my good friend, Wildhartlivie. I am not the accounts SkagRiverKing, KermitClown or MisterSoup. The users Pinkadelica, Crohnie, Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1 are independent editors who have no personal connection to me and are unjustly accused by another editor. She was not a "sockmaster", I was. I'm not a sock puppet, I was the master. Please blame me and not her for my actions. I'm the guilty party here. I apologize to my friends on Wikipedia who felt betrayed and hurt by my actions. LaVidaLoca (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:SOCK[edit]

You have been blocked for a period of one week, your sock User:Soup's On, Mister was engaged in disruption. When you return from your block, do not sock and do not disrupt the project. Thanks. This CU finding of mine was confirmed by another CU. ++Lar: t/c 21:27, 15 January 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).

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

Request reason:

This was not me. I use Juno.com and Netzero.com for dial-up, which yields a dynamic IP, that shows up anywhere from Kalamazoo to various locations in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois and Kentucky, depending on how it turns up. It currently shows me in Chicago, which is nowhere near where I live, which is Ohio. Such a type of IP can produce IP numbers that can certainly pop for any editor, given the moment of connection. This is a situation that can conceivably catch anyone in a net of connection that does not actually exist. I am not a sock puppet or sock master, nor am I interested in that sort of activity. This conversation with an editor who has engaged herself with continued and on-going harassment of other users and against whom I filed an WP:AN/I report just a few hours earlier says everything and being handed a guilty verdict based on her suspicions and an inability to defend myself in a sock case made this entire thing a set up. I did not send e-mails as is claimed to that editor nor did I post those messages to her talk page. I was forced to go to a friend's house 30 miles away to post this via her account since I could not log in to post. Checking a range finder yields a range of 655848 addresses that are associated with this IP 12.64.0.0 - 12.79.255.255. How many editors are conceivably in that catch-up? All I know is that I am not this other account. I know the sock guidelines and I do not violate them. Thanks to the other editor for use of her computer to post this.

Decline reason:

I've reviewed the Checkuser evidence myself and your explanation about the nature of your ISP only makes the evidence more conclusive.Versa geek 23:48, 15 January 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.

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

On further review, your block has been extended to indefinite, as all available evidence, including private evidence and checkuser data, strongly suggests that you are not the sockmaster, but merely another sock. This block should not be lifted, nor this notice removed, without direct consultation with me. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, information has been received and is being reviewed. This information may have bearing on the matter but it is premature to say more at this time. See the statement at the top of this page made by LVL. ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]