User talk:Drunkencorgimaster

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mark McGowan, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Mark McGowan was changed by Drunkencorgimaster (c) (t) blanking the page on 2007-10-21T20:58:54+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot 20:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Chatham-Kent, Ontario worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Deconstructhis 18:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, actually it was just a mistake on my part, not an experiment. I did blast the Mark McGowan page in October. I admit that because I love Corgies and that monster ate one. But my question for you is, why so touchy? You can just change/fix an edit without the lecture. I looked at your discussion page and (no offense) but it looks to me like you are holding the wheel too tightly. Especially given the relatively innocous nature of your writing. Your work is good, just relax and smell the roses:) --Drunkencorgimaster 23:28, 7 December 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

It is hard to appeal, since I do not even know the specific charges. I was blocked by an editor with no explanation that I am able to find. This same editor seems to have unilateraly block hundreds of accounts. The tradition of common law dating back to the reign of Henry II states that the burden of proof lays with the person/entity making a proscriptive action. Clearly this warrants actually explaining WHY the person has been censored.

Decline reason:

You have not been blocked, according to your block log. Chances are that you have been inadvertantly caught by an "autoblock", a techinical feature of the Wikipedia software; such blocks are often neither your fault nor the fault of any administrator. In order to solve this problem, we need you to help us find the source of the autoblock. Please see the instructions below, and follow them exactly, and we can get this cleared up. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:43, 15 December 2008 (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.

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.

Try to edit the Sandbox.
If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-ip|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address (or network) has been used abusively.
This address (or network) has been blocked temporarily or permanently to prevent further abuse.

In extreme cases, an entire network may be blocked to prevent an abusive user from continually changing their IP address in order to evade blocks or abusing multiple accounts. If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please follow these instructions.

Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed.

Users: If you already have an account in good standing, you may request IP block exemption to bypass this block. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

70.233.102.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Blocking administrator: Tiptoety (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: While I have not unblocked the range, I have granted your account IPexempt per CheckUser. You should be able to edit — Tiptoety ^talk 22:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted Tiptoety, who is the checkuser responsible for this block. Checkusers are high-level administrators with priviledged information about editing at Wikipedia, and thus he will need to respond directly before we can unblock this account. We are sorry for the inconvenience, but please be patient while we sort this out. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, Tiptoety isn't a CU. He's a checkuser clerk, and blocks accounts confirmed by CU. A CU says "User X confirmed", and clerk blocks some of the time. X clamation point 04:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, as he issued the block, he will know which case led to the block. He's certainly the only person who can directly answer this problem! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me do some more research here. I have to look back through my logs to determine which case this block was issued for, and what the MO of those socks were/are. I may also request a CheckUser be ran here and may issue IP-exempt of this account appears to be uninvolved. Please be patient. Tiptoety ^talk 20:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on technical evidence, it is Unlikely that this user is the same as the blocked puppetmaster and his socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]