User talk:NoYesNoNoYes

Bbb23 Please explain the block and the use of checkuser. NYNNY (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Nonsensical block. No policy violations, no indication of why checkuser was run, what the results are, how to appeal the block, or any reason why a block was made. Someone needs to review the rationale for this block. I haven't received any response from the blocking admin.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2018 (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.

@Yamla: Tell me please what I have been blocked for? As far as I can tell this block is out of policy. Please point to the damage or disruption this block prevents?? FWIW I am not damaging wikipedia nor am I disrupting it. The blocking policy says a reason is supposed to be given. "checkuser" is not a reason. NYNNY (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for socking, i.e., abusively editing while logged out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I edit while logged out but it is not abusive nor is it a violation of the socking policy. You removed a single comment I made at an administrator noticeboard and then went fishing with checkuser. My edit was not a violation of policy and you have provided ZERO diffs of edits you believe are disruptive.. I edit as an IP independently from my logged-in edits as is allowed by policy. I do not edit in any way that is abusive. It is perfectly fine to edit as an IP. NYNNY (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]