User talk:BountyHunter2008

Current unblock request

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).

BountyHunter2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Further more to the {{second chance}} I have found an article to improve and have made the adoptions to the references and made them so that you can see what they are. I await the descsion of a checkuser to decide whether or not they can determine that I am not Chris19910, even though we have the same address with the same IP and attend the same college.

Decline reason:

As per Checkuser Sam Korn: this account has been confirmed by CU evidence as a sock puppet account. Sorry, Anthøny ✉ 19:58, 11 September 2008 (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.

•  Question: Where are the checkuser results confirming that BountyHunter = Chris19910 located? I request that a link be provided, before further request handling is performed. Placing unblock request on hold for now. Anthøny ✉ 20:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a documented checkuser report. I blocked this user as a sockpuppet before a checkuser was even done, as it was quite evident that it was a sockpuppet. As for the checkuser being done, MaxSem was the one who did it, as evident from his declining of the unblock request.

And just a note about the "improvements" suggested below - he didn't change the content at all. The only change from the actual article is the modification of some of the reference links. (Just an observation, not that I'd support an unblock even if he had made improvements to the content). - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser investigations were run on account of cross-wiki trolling. I did not run the checks, but I have seen results and see no reason to think the block is mistaken. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous unblock request

Click show for previous unblock requests (x3)

Unblock 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). BountyHunter2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Can someboady please explain why I have been blocked. Looking at the contribs of the two accounts they are totally different and also why does User:spacebirdy on Meta thinks that I am a sockpuppet? I have looked at the SUL or what ever it is above for the comparisons and they are not alike. Decline reason: Checkuser-confirmed sock, beyond any doubt. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 20:01, 8 September 2008 (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. Unblock 2 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). BountyHunter2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I actually share/rent a house with 3 housemates and each of us have laptops. We all go to Bridgwater college in Somerset and we are registered to the internet company TalkTalk. Under the WP:SHARE policy I am entitled to edit wikipedia and because of this policy I believe that when the checkuser has been run that their accounts have been picked up as well as mine. I ask that a checkuser can either confirm this and unblock my account or that someone contact the Landlord of the property which I will forward the email address to if needed to confirm what has been said. I will also send along the other housemates email addresses if required to do so. Decline reason: First, with Checkuser involved, this is typically left up to one of the admins with access to it since they are the only ones who can review the evidence. Second, you have misread WP:SHARE. It says nothing about this sort of editing being allowed, rather in relevant part it reads: "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit towards the same objectives." — Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2008 (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. Unblock 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). BountyHunter2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Per http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:2nd_chance I request that I be given a second chance to show the community what good I will do rather than them thinking that I am sockpuppet. Please conform to this request as I believe that it is an open appology to anone who wants to accept it. I have written a formal letter of appology and will forward to any admin that wishes to see it and look into what I have said in the email. Decline reason: Please go ahead and fallow the directions at {{second chance}} and post your edits here. Once you have done that we will review your request further. — Tiptoety talk 21:42, 9 September 2008 (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. Again, this is up to a checkuser. They have access to the records that show what other accounts and IP addresses you have used and what you did under them. Most admins are not able to view these records, and so cannot unblock you without consulting one of them first. I'm not even comfortable giving you the second chance attempt you're requesting without their approval. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)