Welcome!
Hello, Crappon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Tim Vickers 17:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Crappon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I believe I have been blocked in error. I hold only one account, this one, and have never let another person use it. Examination of my contributions confirms that no one else has made any contributions in my name. I would be appreciative if this block could be reviewed.
Decline reason:
It would have to be reviewed by someone else with checkuser access, since the block was based on evidence from that tool. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2009 (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.
That's fine, I am in no particular hurry. Will they see it now that you've responded to the unblock request and it's no longer appearing as an active request for unblock? Crappon (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I left a message for Nixeagle (the blocking admin), although his page says he's busy offline at the moment. Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|1=Hello, I have been asked to find another admin with checkuser access by Nixeagle as he is currently only 'limited to maintaining the SPI bot.' Would someone else be willing to review the decision to block me as a sockpuppet? Please refer to my earlier request for unblock. Ta.}}
- This far after the fact, it's difficult to be absolutely certain what happened, as server logs are only kept for so long. However, I do notice that both Avi and myself responded to checkuser queries on this matter, with slightly different results: my response dated 13 Feb 2009 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#Jake Gyllenhaal forgeries back again does not mention this account, but Avi's dated 29 March 2009 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paparazzixox/Archive does; this could be interpreted a few different ways, I think. Since this account has no edits during that Feb-March gap, I'm inclined to assume the difference in results could be explained by a difference in investigative method. It could be that one of us cast our nets too widely or too narrowly.
Avi's SPI results associate your account -- rightly or wrongly -- with a sockmaster who mostly (not quite always) applies an immediately recognizable modus operandi. Typically those accounts will post elaborate hoaxes as userpages, frequently with mention of Jake Gyllenhaal, Madonna (entertainer), and a "Devils and Angels Tour". If you're prepared to shy away from anything to do with those topics for a while, broadly construed, I'm inclined to assume good faith and give you the benefit of the doubt.
I'll also drop a note with Avi, in case they've got anything insightful to add, here. Either way, thanks for your patience. I hope we can resolve this quickly, one way or another. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
