User talk:CampKohler

Hello CampKohler, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Addison2008 (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, please refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 07:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I suspect my use of PCs at the Sacramento Public Library may have something to do with this as there are thousands of users. I haven't done any editing in a while and certainly nothing that would warrant this. Can I have examples? CampKohler (talk) 1:50 am, Today (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

As you can see below, checkuser does not agree with unblocking. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2017 (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.

@DeltaQuad: What is exact reason for this block? According to the block logs, it looks like you blocked this used in connection to User:Islamic Charity Society. What is the nature of connection, I don't see behavioral similarities? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the blocking admin missed the ping. I'll seek direct input on her talk page. --Jayron 32 01:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: Just so you are aware, this is a checkuser block, I'm not going to be recinding that aspect of it at this point. This is a bit of a hard appeal to answer given the block and the checks are 9 months old. What I can figure out is the user is requesting unblock from a library, which is cleaver, but when I ran my check back on February 1, I had a residential IP I was checking in connection with ACC request #191208 that I dropped. When I drop a request from ACC, there is only one reason. I've firmly connected it to a sockmaster that has already been blocked with socks a few times.

Even more curiously, I ran the Library IP address, and found that on Oct 11, another user that I had blocked on Janurary 3rd, Sonofida (talk · contribs) also matching the same IP in the checkuser log that I checked against CampKohler when I ran my checks many months ago. The reason I found that account was from ACC request #189371 was an actual request for the Sonofida account. It gets better. In that ACC it was also noted that Tokayeweu (talk · contribs) was beyond

Confirmed to that request, and I dropped it also.

Surprisingly that single IP has 30 checkusers having been run on it dating back to February 2016. 3 different sockpuppet investigations and an Arbcom appeal, and some other checks. Running that IP through CU now says the last edit from it was in May, so obviously stale, but means I've missed even more accounts. So this is one hell of a rabbit whole, and that's just without going in to the NPI side of this.

That all said, I'm not accepting this unblock request from an IP address that is done from a library. Please try a residential address before we consider an unblock. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't viewed this matter in the last year, because I have had no edits to make until I saw an available image missing in the Chancellor of the Exchequer article. As it appears that the block was never removed, I suppose I had better reply even though I am using an iPhone and I don't know if the block even applies, as obviously a different IP is used (does it?). I have no residential ISP, so this iPhone is the best I can do. As an aside, I don't know why IP addresses are so important, as it would block the thousands of users who have no other 'Net access; one would think that blocking by account name would be sufficient, but I suspect I just don't understand the process, not being wealthy enough to afford a battery of lawyers to explain the meaning of everything in the page about how to get unblocked. I have worked in electronics and data comm since 1960, so I can deal with complicated matters, but phrases like "which is cleaver" and "blocked with socks" make no sense to me, so I will have to depend upon "the kindness of strangers" to resolve this.

What is it that I allegedly wrote anyway? It seems to me that that shouldn't be hard to answer, and would be far more relevant than some IP address that will be surely shared by a gazillion others. Has anyone bothered to read my past edits to see what articles are of interest to me vs. what articles were damaged? That would seem to me to be the best line of inquiry as to what is going on.

I'll check this page daily now just to make sure this gets resolved in a timely fashion, I.e. before the new year. :-) CampKohler (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry, i.e. using multiple accounts for illegitimate reasons. Your use of multiple accounts was detected using the WP:Checkuser tool that can only be used by several trusted administrators (also called 'checkusers'). According to Wikipedia rules, a checkuser-block can only be lifted by checkuser or the WP:ARBCOM. As you already read, the checkuser (User:DeltaQuad) does not agree with unblocking, thus your only hope is to either persude DeltaQuad to change their mind or to contact the WP:ARBCOM. Regarding your first question ("I don't know if the block even applies"), I want to tell you that Wikipedia blocks apply to persons. Thus, you (as a person) are blocked from editing Wikipedia regardless of the device or IP address you use. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS

Hi, as your most recent posts on your talk page have not been constructive, I’ve revoked your talk page access. This means to appeal, you should use WP:UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]