User talk:Verycarefully

Blocked?

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)[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).

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)[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.

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)[reply]

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)[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).

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)[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.

Your account was blocked as a result of a WP:CHECKUSER investigation, so I'd say that it has been "accused as such." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not every first edit with a registered account, but certainly those from users who come out positive on a Checkuser for sockpuppetry. As for dismissals, those are a typical result when someone's material defenses of their appeal consist of arguing the process that identified them shouldn't have been used (Wikipedia is not a courtroom and does not dismiss evidence on technicality - checkuser misuse might get the user in hot water, but it won't get anyone exonerated), and erroneously repeating that they "weren't accused". If you wish to submit another unblock request, I will leave it to another admin's assessment. - Vianello (Talk) 01:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a hard time following what you just said. I am not a sockpuppet. The rest of what you said was circular--coming out "positive on a Checkuser for sockpuppetry" is what justifies checkusering. Nice privacy policy there. I meant, I wasn't accused *before* the checkuser--and haven't been informed afterwards. Whose sockpuppet am I supposed to be? Verycarefully (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possibilities: 1) there is a way for me to appeal, or 2) Wikipedia has a doctrine of checkuser infallibility. I can't appeal a sockpuppet accusation when you refuse to tell me whose sockpuppet you think I am. I can't appeal being checkusered when you tell me the sockpuppet accusation retroactiviely justifies the checkuser. Thus, I can't appeal, and you practice a doctrine of admin infallibility. Verycarefully (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2014 (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).

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:

Sockpuppet of Minorview per Timotheus Canens. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:11, 10 June 2014 (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.

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).

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)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please log into your main account and post an unblock there. John (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (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.

Note

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)[reply]

I don't actually care about this account. I'm mostly appalled at the process. Verycarefully (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I can't help you. The talk page of a blocked editor is not where we would address any shortcomings in policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. If you wrongly block someone due to shortcomings in policy, that will indirectly be addressed in how you handle the appeals. Verycarefully (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand. I CAN'T undo your block. No admin can. If they did, they would get desysopped. This is a Checkuser block, only a Checkuser can review and unblock. That is why I sent you to UTRS. Checkusers have access to information that admin do not, which is why we aren't allowed to unblock. Whether the block is right or not, no admin can help you, only UTRS can. Or you can wait for a Checkuser to stumble upon this page, which isn't likely to happen soon as there are very few Checkusers. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This IP is accessible to a few thousand people. Are you going to block all of them as sockpuppets of Minorview, who doesn't seem to have been blocked in over a year and who hasn't even edited in months? Verycarefully (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you are the first person this has happened to? Do you think you will be the last? Dennis is one of the good guys here, who is trying to make the system actually work for the people who try to edit. Listen to him. If you want to appeal, you should not wait too long, as the checkuser information they will need to examine for an appeal is only available for a short time. If you are going to appeal by email, you will probably want to enable your email as well. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a link to this discussion on the UTRS talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get this message every time: "Failed to connect to database server!" Verycarefully (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's fixed now. —Neotarf (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access now blocked.

"23:35, 20 June 2014 John (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Verycarefully (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (too many unblock requests)"

I'm not an admin, but feel free to email me at neotarf (AT) gmail (DOT) com if you like. I have intentionally made my public email very searchable for IPs and users without email access. —Neotarf (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What ever happened to do not bite the new guy???

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)[reply]

I have mentioned this page here, but hopefully the user has grasped the situation, and will not edit from campus again. —Neotarf (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]