Why is this account blocked? No reason is given. Also, it says "checkuserblock-account". I thought checkuser was only used for severe cases of disruption or strong suspicion of rule-breaking. Verycarefully ( talk) 14:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Verycarefully ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why is this account blocked??? There is no explanation, no expiration date... I made three edits.
Decline reason:
Checkuser is used for WP:SOCKPUPPET investigations. Sockpuppet accounts are blocked indefinitely. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:00, 21 May 2014 (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.
I'm not a sockpuppet and have never been accused of being one. I made three edits with the account, none of which were controversial. There is no reason even to suspect me of being anyone's sockpuppet. Whose sockpuppet am I supposed to be? And isn't all this supposed to be stated when you block someone? Verycarefully ( talk) 18:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
From the link given by User:Ohnoitsjamie: "In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy and Checkuser policies, checks are only conducted with good cause....Particularly, "fishing"—the use of CheckUser for a given user account without good cause specific to that user account—is prohibited."
What is the "good cause"? If this is based on IP alone, it should be noted that I made this account on a school-district computer. Verycarefully ( talk) 18:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Verycarefully ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This account isn't a sockpuppet and hasn't been accused as such.
Decline reason:
Yes it has been, and repeating that it has not been will not change that. More importantly though, persuading anyone of the first point will require a little more than a flat denial. An explanation of why your very first action was to go jump into the middle of a single specific WP:ANB post - which is a heck of an odd first editing choice - would be a start. - Vianello ( Talk) 02:44, 22 May 2014 (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.
Does the appeal process here usually consist of primarily of sarcastic dismissals?
According to the privacy policy, there is supposed to be some misuse of an account in order to justify a checkuser. I didn't misuse the account.
As for my "very first action", I've edited sporadically for a year, and probably a dozen times in the previous years. My first edit with this account was not my first or tenth edit. Recently, I had taken an interest in the community forums, but when I tried to add my 2 cents I received a message that the IP was blocked. I might be misremembering but I thought the message encouraged me to register an account. So I did, gave my 2 cents, and was promptly blocked.
If you think every first edit with a registered account that shows prior experience is suspicious, you should stop inviting users to edit without registering. Verycarefully ( talk) 15:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Verycarefully ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This account isn't a sock. How am I supposed to appeal this, when nobody will tell me whose sockpuppet I'm supposed to be? All that can be said is "The checkuser is wrong" when all that is given is "Because the checkuser says so." Verycarefully (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
Verycarefully ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
1. As I've said, I use this account on a school-district IP. I've made exactly one account on it, which I used exactly three times. I know, from having viewed the IP contribs, that many others use it--more than me. In fact, it is when I tried to to use it unlogged-in (my normal way of editing) that I was told by the message to create a new account because it was blocked for IP-only edits. 2. Minorview isn't blocked and is uninvolved in any of the 2 areas I edited... At this point, I've read the sockpuppet rules completely more than once. There was no rules-violation when I was checkusered, and there would actually be no rules violation even if this account were being used by someone else. Verycarefully ( talk) 19:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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'm not reviewing the block myself, but I will offer this in good faith. If you are innocent, you will have a better chance of getting unblocked if you use WP:UTRS. You can email, provide information you might not want to disclose publicly, etc. You might want to read this first: WP:GAB. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It sure would be helpful if this sort of thing were made clear the first, second, or third time I appealed, or if the page "UTRS" said anything about being the correct method for checkuser blocks, or if indeed there were a clear guideline explaining that checkuser blocks must be appealed in a different way, or if such a guideline does exist buried somewhere on some page that it be presented to users when they are checkuser blocked, or that the blocking admin, knowing it is nearly impossible to appeal his block in the normal ways took some responsibility to pay attention to the effects of his block, or if Wikipedia in general treated people with a minimal degree of competence. I've edited for a long time minimally without an account, suchs as fixing typos when the page allows IP-edits. I can't imagine taking any deeper interest in Wikipedia given the character of the community and my experience to-date. Verycarefully ( talk) 15:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Clearly the owner of this talk page was trying to figure out how to navigate the wacky world of wikipedia and now his only communication has been cut off. How does that help anyone. I guess that is what happens with a bunch of free help. 23.235.7.22 ( talk) 16:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Why is this account blocked? No reason is given. Also, it says "checkuserblock-account". I thought checkuser was only used for severe cases of disruption or strong suspicion of rule-breaking. Verycarefully ( talk) 14:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Verycarefully ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why is this account blocked??? There is no explanation, no expiration date... I made three edits.
Decline reason:
Checkuser is used for WP:SOCKPUPPET investigations. Sockpuppet accounts are blocked indefinitely. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:00, 21 May 2014 (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.
I'm not a sockpuppet and have never been accused of being one. I made three edits with the account, none of which were controversial. There is no reason even to suspect me of being anyone's sockpuppet. Whose sockpuppet am I supposed to be? And isn't all this supposed to be stated when you block someone? Verycarefully ( talk) 18:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
From the link given by User:Ohnoitsjamie: "In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy and Checkuser policies, checks are only conducted with good cause....Particularly, "fishing"—the use of CheckUser for a given user account without good cause specific to that user account—is prohibited."
What is the "good cause"? If this is based on IP alone, it should be noted that I made this account on a school-district computer. Verycarefully ( talk) 18:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Verycarefully ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This account isn't a sockpuppet and hasn't been accused as such.
Decline reason:
Yes it has been, and repeating that it has not been will not change that. More importantly though, persuading anyone of the first point will require a little more than a flat denial. An explanation of why your very first action was to go jump into the middle of a single specific WP:ANB post - which is a heck of an odd first editing choice - would be a start. - Vianello ( Talk) 02:44, 22 May 2014 (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.
Does the appeal process here usually consist of primarily of sarcastic dismissals?
According to the privacy policy, there is supposed to be some misuse of an account in order to justify a checkuser. I didn't misuse the account.
As for my "very first action", I've edited sporadically for a year, and probably a dozen times in the previous years. My first edit with this account was not my first or tenth edit. Recently, I had taken an interest in the community forums, but when I tried to add my 2 cents I received a message that the IP was blocked. I might be misremembering but I thought the message encouraged me to register an account. So I did, gave my 2 cents, and was promptly blocked.
If you think every first edit with a registered account that shows prior experience is suspicious, you should stop inviting users to edit without registering. Verycarefully ( talk) 15:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Verycarefully ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This account isn't a sock. How am I supposed to appeal this, when nobody will tell me whose sockpuppet I'm supposed to be? All that can be said is "The checkuser is wrong" when all that is given is "Because the checkuser says so." Verycarefully (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
Verycarefully ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
1. As I've said, I use this account on a school-district IP. I've made exactly one account on it, which I used exactly three times. I know, from having viewed the IP contribs, that many others use it--more than me. In fact, it is when I tried to to use it unlogged-in (my normal way of editing) that I was told by the message to create a new account because it was blocked for IP-only edits. 2. Minorview isn't blocked and is uninvolved in any of the 2 areas I edited... At this point, I've read the sockpuppet rules completely more than once. There was no rules-violation when I was checkusered, and there would actually be no rules violation even if this account were being used by someone else. Verycarefully ( talk) 19:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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'm not reviewing the block myself, but I will offer this in good faith. If you are innocent, you will have a better chance of getting unblocked if you use WP:UTRS. You can email, provide information you might not want to disclose publicly, etc. You might want to read this first: WP:GAB. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It sure would be helpful if this sort of thing were made clear the first, second, or third time I appealed, or if the page "UTRS" said anything about being the correct method for checkuser blocks, or if indeed there were a clear guideline explaining that checkuser blocks must be appealed in a different way, or if such a guideline does exist buried somewhere on some page that it be presented to users when they are checkuser blocked, or that the blocking admin, knowing it is nearly impossible to appeal his block in the normal ways took some responsibility to pay attention to the effects of his block, or if Wikipedia in general treated people with a minimal degree of competence. I've edited for a long time minimally without an account, suchs as fixing typos when the page allows IP-edits. I can't imagine taking any deeper interest in Wikipedia given the character of the community and my experience to-date. Verycarefully ( talk) 15:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Clearly the owner of this talk page was trying to figure out how to navigate the wacky world of wikipedia and now his only communication has been cut off. How does that help anyone. I guess that is what happens with a bunch of free help. 23.235.7.22 ( talk) 16:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)