| Revision as of 11:52, 8 January 2008 editProctor spock (talk | contribs)104 edits →Unblock request: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:48, 13 January 2008 edit undoLocke Cole (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,891 edits →Personal attacks: you have not been personally attackedNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| :::: ] (]) 11:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | :::: ] (]) 11:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==Personal attacks== | |||
| I have not personally attacked you. Again: the checkuser request resulted in a "likely" response that you and Ray are the same editor. —] • ] • ] 02:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:48, 13 January 2008
WP:3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on HD DVD. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request
Proctor spock (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Improper block. Another editor, Locke Cole, removed valuable content from the HD DVD article. I saw his inappropriate removal, created an account, and restored the material. He placed the boilerplate warning message above and proceeded to remove the content again. The consensus on the discussion page for HD DVD is that this content belongs in the article. I have restored the content and no other editor has removed it since. However, Locke Cole requested a checkuser on me. I am not sure why it was granted, but I am not another editor to the HD DVD or similar articles. Locke Cole appears to be gaming the system to prevent other editors who happen to share the same opinion from editing these articles.
Decline reason:
You have not been blocked directly. If you have been autoblocked, we need to know the autoblock ID, the user who is causing your block, and your IP address. — B (talk) 20:48, 6 January 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.
This is confusing. The block is a result of this: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ray_andrew. Alison appears to be causing the block at Locke Cole's request. Proctor spock (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are three ways someone can be blocked. (1) You can be blocked directly. That is the only thing an admin has the ability to check. Your block log is empty, so I know that you have not been blocked directly. (2) You can be autoblocked as a result of sharing the same IP address as another user who has been blocked. This is done by the software and, for your privacy, admins have no way to see this. If you have been autoblocked, your block message will give you an autoblock ID number, the name of the blocking admin, your IP address, and the user who is causing your block. You have to provide this information because we have no way to consider your request without it. (3) Your IP can be blocked directly. Again, in that case, we need to know what your IP is and who the admin is that blocked it, otherwise, we have no way to know how to remove it. Alison has blocked several IP addresses today and if one of those is your's, I'm sorry, but it was being used abusively and cannot be unblocked. --B (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The corresponding IP for this block was not being used abusively. Editor Locke Cole confused me with another editor and had Alison perform a checkuser. I do not know how, but the result she got is inaccurate. I am not Ray andrew. Proctor spock (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you use Special:Emailuser/Alison, you can discuss it with her and explain any results that she may have found on your IP, but there is nothing that anyone else can do. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. --B (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The corresponding IP for this block was not being used abusively. Editor Locke Cole confused me with another editor and had Alison perform a checkuser. I do not know how, but the result she got is inaccurate. I am not Ray andrew. Proctor spock (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- While I have no comment as to what this editor has been doing regarding the checkuser case, the IP that this editor has been using has been hardblocked for other reasons and should not be unblocked. Really sorry about that - Alison 22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- So that I understand you, you are saying the blocking of the IP underlying my account was not a result of the checkuser case? Proctor spock (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it was the result of the checkuser case. I'm not at liberty to reveal it, though, due to the privacy policy - Alison 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some questions to think about:
- (1) Why would a checkuser case for two named editors result in a block of an IP address but neither editor?
- (2) How did the evidence provided at the request for checkuser rise to the level of investigating a named editor's IP address? How does this mesh with "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases."?
Personal attacks
I have not personally attacked you. Again: the checkuser request resulted in a "likely" response that you and Ray are the same editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)