VengeancePrime

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1. Can someone please explain WHAT is going on?

2. Can someone show or tell me how all this is determined?

3. Can someone fix it too? I'm not sure what all that is about.

{{subst:User:VengeancePrime/Signature}}

Unblock

1. Looking at Wikipedia:Appealing a block it reads: "If your account has been blocked by mistake, it will be reactivated very quickly, as soon as you let an administrator know of the problem. Otherwise, there is a rapid appeal process which obtains quick review by other independent administrators, and brief discussion of the matter."
2. Something I didn't know is in the second section: "Do you use an ISP or web accelerator that involves shared IPs? Common examples include AOL, Comcast, StarHub, schools, colleges, or Google Web Accelerator." I have used Comcast, various government or government-connected computers, and an airport. That I can think of offhand. (for that matter, I'm editing on a public wireless right now!)
3. Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks finally gave a template to use. Here it is:

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).

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

---

Request reason:

here's my Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks #I'll be brief. #I'm calm. I'm almost numb. Dumbfounded is the best word for it. #What is wrong about my block: there's no need, reason, or even justification to me about it. I'm not sure what it's about. The box says "This user is indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing of pedophilia related topics" but I don't know that I have any pedophilia-related topics in my edit contributions. I have heard terms like "off-wiki" and "second checkuser" and can't find anywhere where I have come up in a negative way. In fact, everyone with whom I've worked seems to get along with me very well, even those that initially didn't. So I'm confused, and nobody is giving me answers. #Addressing the block reason: This page says "sockpuppet" and the userpage gives a specific user with the same initials. (as a side note, I hate using initials...sounds like I'm trying to run with Obama.) A cursory glance at that user's edit history doesn't seem to show many if any articles on which we've both worked. For that matter, not even in the same fields that I can see. #Evidence: (Guilty until proved innocent? Whatever.) Again, contribution histories. What few editss I did see were usually sweeping and I'm mostly a copyeditor. Didn't ever see him bring an article for deletion, while I make it a sport. Don't know what really to put here. Oh yeah, edit summaries... I'm succinct (to a fault) and he is very detailed in most of them (just looking at contributions list). #Don't behave like you think lawyers do: I hope I haven't. #Threaten legal action? How pathetic.

Decline reason:

Declined, you and the banned user VigilancePrime share an IP address, have a similar name, and have both edited pedophilia related topics. This is good enough evidence to apply an indefinite block. Please direct further appeals to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. — MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 17 August 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.

Take 2

(And IIRC, this is supposed to reviewed by an UNINVOLVED admin. The one who deleted all my userpages within minutes of this block would not be "uninvolved".)

Per the instruction above: "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again"

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have read the page, and incorporated it into my original request. Here's what I have against the decline reason: #As I read, that can be for using the same ISP, hotel, airport, Starbucks, whatever. I've probably been on two dozen public IPs in the last month. #A similar name? I could point out others with similar names. #Pedophilia topic? What pedophilia topic have I edited? :I'm confused. None of the above seem like reason for anything more than an inquiry. Isn't that what a talk page is for?

Decline reason:

Sockpuppets almost always deny that they are sockpuppets, but this case is fairly clear- checkuser on its own is very reliable, but you made it even easier to identify you. Please respect the ban you got as User:VigilancePrime and find an interest outside of Wikipedia. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:24, 17 August 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.

purty puh-leese?

What? I made it clear? I don't even know what you're talking about.

How did I make anything clear?

And that's like saying murders always claim they're not murders...non-murders would too, so does that mean they're guilty? None of this is making sense.

I'm being banned because my name is similar to someone else? No other reason? And can I see this "evidence" of checkuser? Why is it not on the checkuser page? Seems suspicious. I'm sure it's all in good faith, but still not reliable.

I would appreciate some sort of actual, factual explanation. {{subst:User:VengeancePrime/Signature}}

I'm sure you can understand why our checkusers don't release the actual data that allowed us to identify returning users; that would make it easier for people to find ways to avoid making the same mistakes, and then we'd have to come up with even cleverer ways of detecting them. However, if checkuser says you're confirmed, you're confirmed- there's very little point in continuing to deny it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The unblock page itself says that a checkuser isn't 100%
2. So there's no challenging it? "so-and-so says so, and so it is?"
3. I'm not trying to say "due process" (cause that is lawyer-like), but there's a rush to judgement/leap of faith here.

{{subst:User:VengeancePrime/Signature}}

Protected

Your talk page has been protected from editing to prevent you from using the unblock template to appeal your block. According to the directive of the Arbitration Committee, you must appeal your block directly to them at arbcom-l AT lists DOT wikimedia DOT org. Non-arbitrators are not to deal with cases relating to pedophilia. Your talk page will be protected for the duration of your block; if ArbCom decides to unblock you, an active arbitrator will unprotect your page. Until that time, your ban, as placed on you as User:VigilancePrime, is in full effect. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)