User talk:Krizoitz
- Krizoitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 131.107.0.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Bernin18". The reason given for Bernin18's block is: "Block evasion".
Decline reason: As noted below. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- This account appears to have been compromised. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This account has not been compromised
[edit]Krizoitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This account has NOT been compromised. As a personal friend (and former roommate) of Brendan Loy I added text referring to him as a founding father as a joke. We are both political junkies and had been following the Michelle Bachmann/John Quincy Adams/Founding Fathers gaffe and subsequence editing of the JQA page by Bachmann followers. I never intended to keep the change for long, just long enough for him to see it, and would have removed it however as I am blocked indefinitely I am unable to do so. If you need evidence that he and I know each other you can check out our Twitter friend lists (I am krizoitz, he is brendanloy) and note we follow each other. I am also a regular guestblogger on the blog linked at the bottom of his entry.
Decline reason:
Here's what's funny: Wikipedia is not a joke! See WP:EBUR (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 30 June 2011 (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.
- Checkuser shows that this edit and this unblock request were made from a different computer used to make this edit and the unblock-auto request above this section. The edits were made from the same general area, however. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Krizoitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Account was blocked due to a misunderstanding (as stated above). Rather than issue a warning to me as this was my first "offense" I have been indefinitely blocked. I feel this is unfair and capricious in nature. I intended no harm and would have gladly agreed not to make the same mistake again had I been notified of it before hand. Krizoitz (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No, I frankly can't credit what you're saying. You got along for years without trouble, then all of a sudden make an uncharacteristic vandalism edit. You are then caught in an autoblock which was placed against a known sockmaster. There is every appearance that your account was compromised, and is being used by Carbonator. -- Atama頭 18:01, 1 July 2011 (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.
My first response was to decline this request: if you really didn't know that vandalism is wrong, and you really didn't understand that it causes harm, then the person who unblocks you will have to check all of your edits in the future, because that's an indication that there may be serious problems with future edits, too. I started to decline because I am not willing to commit to double-checking your edits in future, but then I decided to leave the request open in case some other administrator is willing to do the job. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Unblocked
[edit]I have unblocked this account based on a few reasons:
- I have confirmed, off-Wiki, in a manner I consider fully reliable, that this account is not compromised. (Any admin seeking details should feel free to email me.)
- Krizoitz has acknowledged that the vandalism was inappropriate and will not repeat any similar editing.
- Krizoitz has assured me that he is unrelated to the Carbonator (talk · contribs) account; I personally find this credible. There is no apparent overlap in editing history. It is certainly plausible that a co-worker at a major technology corporation is Carbonator and Krizoitz got caught in a confluence of a bad idea edit and a range block.
- With the concern over the account being compromised addressed above, a block for a single vandal edit is excessive. Call it time served and let's move on.
Note: I am something of an acquaintance of the editor (though I doubt we've met in RL) and this does color my judgment. I would be honestly surprised if Krizoitz had anything to do with Carbonator given what I've seen in Carbonator's editing history. — Scientizzle 21:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I declined the most recent unblock request but I support this unblock, based on the email sent to me by Krizoitz (and I have no acquaintance with Krizoitz prior to now). I was going to approach the blocking administrator before choosing to unblock, but I'm convinced that this isn't a compromised account. -- Atama頭 23:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not a problem for me, as blocking admin; I defer to my brother admin's discretion and judgement here. Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)