User talk:Mick Jaguar

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).

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

Request reason:

This an unjustified block of an account which had never been used to edit anything other than my sandbox page, so for which there couldn't possibly have been any evidence to prompt even an allegation of sock-puppetry, let alone enough to request or perform a checkuser on. If checkuser was used then it can only have been as part of a fishing expedition, and that is explicitly disallowed by the policies.

Decline reason:

It's Likely this is DeFacto (talk · contribs) attempting to avoid their block. TN X Man 17:56, 30 May 2012 (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.

This blocked user (block log | active blocks | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs | abuse log) has had their talk page access revoked because an administrator has identified this user's talkpage edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. If you would like to make further requests, you may contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Request reason

No credible evidence of suspected sock-puppetry was presented before before checkuser was used and no evidence that this account has been used, or even will be used, in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position) has been presented. This block is a result of an abuse of the checkuser tool. If you decline this request please explain why you think that this action is not in breech of WP:NOTFISHING, and tell me how to report a blatant infringement of the "There must be a valid reason to check a user." clause of m:CheckUser#Policy.

Revoke reason

Stop wasting our time. You're banned, which means nobody can unblock you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]