User talk:SalmonSteaks

Extended content

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). SalmonSteaks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I hope I set this up right cause I looked therough 30 different pages -- but anyhow -- why am I blocked? was it because I changed an endpoint for NY 22? It was an honest mistake because the sign says end in Moores. A user then cghanged it back saying the NYDOT still considers the original point the end point. I looked and he was right and told him that. He never responded. ADDED - After seeing the comments from Imzadi I am even more comfuzzled. I'm the only one who uses my laptop so I am confused how I would link to the Airtuna person other than having a fish in my user name too. Please re-check and post your findings. *HUGS* >SalmonSteaks (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: Per discussion below. Despite not having access to the Checkuser tool, I think there is sufficient justification for the block already. As noted, Courcelles has a good track record and it seems there is good reason for the block. And two comments on your "checkuser to prove it's not me" request (three actually): First, as stated at the "Guide to Appealing a Block" page, these requests almost always fail because it's difficult to prove that two editors actually are different people. Second, they also fail because many admins consider such requests a sure sign of a sock. Third, in this specific case your stated reason that Checkuser got it wrong demonstrates at best a very poor understanding of computer networking technology and at worst would be additional proof that you are indeed a sock. It does not matter whether you are the only person who uses your laptop or not—laptops usually don't have their own IP address. There can be additional computers on that IP address. And while Checkuser can be used to determine this (and I do know just enough about this to say that I can't go into any fgreater detail), in this case it wouldn't matter because it's the IP address that counts, not what computer was used. The fact that you're trying to defend yourself this way strongly suggests that you are, indeed, a sock of Airtuna. I know, I know, it was a great plan, and you would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling checkusers. Sorry ... you'll have to sock on some other website where they're not so vigilant. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2012 (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. I'm not an admin nor am I a CheckUser, so I can't officially review the block, but I can offer a few comments. The block reason is "checkuserblock: Airtuna08". That means it is not related to any specific article you edited. Because this is based on CheckUser, a regular admin can't review the block, only another CheckUser can. There is evidence that this is a WP:Sockpuppet account related to Airtuna08 (talk · contribs). This evidence comes from a combination of technical log data only CheckUsers and other functionaries would have access to see, as well as behavioral and editing trends. Given the situation with Airtuna08, I wouldn't expect to be unblocked any time soon. While I'd normally be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, a CheckUser situation inclines me to think otherwise and support the block. Imzadi 1979 → 23:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC) I do not know who that is. I just re-joined Wikipedia a couple hours ago, and itt would be impossible for the IPs to match since I'm the only one who uses my laptop. *HUGS* >SalmonSteaks (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC) CheckUsers can match more than an IP address though. I'm loathe to doubt Courcelle's word on this one though. Imzadi 1979 → 01:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I am flabbergasted, haha. I guess to use Wikipedia you have to be a computer science major who knows all about networking! Very hilarious indeed. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of you peers. Not guilty until proven innocent by one user who didn't like me editing. What did I walk into? It's a mad house! (yea, I sung that). Well I love you all. *HUGS* --SalmonSteaks (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC) The presumption of innocence applies only to the courts. It's certainly a nice principle to have, but one that doesn't have to apply to private organizations and their websites, any more than it would to your own house (if I accuse you of stealing and ask you to leave it, you can't stay on the grounds that you're entitled to due process before I call the police and report you for trespassing). In any event, said process, to the extent we have it, is extended to the accused sockmaster, and there has been considerable and continuing discussion on User talk:Airtuna08 between that account and the accusers. Now, I must admit, some of the information on your user page, and my personal familiarity with Airtuna from past interaction, leads me to believe, without checkuser, that you and Airtuna are the same person. If so, then your userpage claim that you lost the account password is a lie as Airtuna08 continues to edit on that talk page. It would not bode well for an unblock if you were deliberately deceptive. Due process here does not mean we have to prove you're not the other person ... it means we have to establish a reasonable basis that you are, and I feel that burden has been met. I think you're at the point where you need to declare all other accounts, whether we're aware of them or not, and state that you will use one and only one from this point on, if you wish to have any hope of unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I haven't a clue who this Airtuna is but this whole thing is strange. I would rather not edit here anyway if people are invading my personal privavy by comparing my computer usage to another user(s). There are many people you can tie together than based on username and common issue. In all honesty, I signed up for an account with good intentions. My edits were quickly reverted for good reason but I acknowledged that after he/she pointed me to new information. BTW, are you actually a paid wiki employee or is this just some glorified magic the gathering-esk online forum where you all get titles and certain rights after awhile? If the ladder is true, you are just as outside that private organization as me just using the site's public right to edit. I suggest you fellas leave your mother's dark basement and get outside once and awhile and stop hawking people's well intentioned edits. *HUGS* >SalmonSteaks (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC) :) :) July 2012 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts followed by misuse of your talk page to attack other editors. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom unblock appeal

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the appeal of Airtuna08 (talk · contribs) and has declined to unblock that account and related accounts either known or discovered during the investigation. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.

For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)