User talk:Sophie

Blocked

User:Sophie, I have blocked your account based on private information and checkuser data. If you wish to discuss or contest this block, please email arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Risker (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to concerns about behaviour and personal information disclosed by the user, a checkuser was requested. Several checkusers reviewed the findings, and all separately confirmed that it appears the user had made significant misrepresentations. The account was blocked, and additional checkuser reviews concur with the original decision. Risker (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm these findings as one of the checkusers asked to check into this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean she isn't coming back? ~~She seemed just fine when I saw her working on RC patrol.~~ Just read the block reason :( . Even if she isn't 13/isn't User:Picopa's brother/whatever else, I don't think that is block-worthy. Just my thoughts. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can confirm what findings from CU Hersfold? That she has multiple accounts and probably edited from school a time or 2? This is beginning to look more and more like Risker made a block because someone pissed her off, and now she is trying to get Check Users to lie to cover her ass. I've looked (I have seen CU results from other wikis she operates on, nothing alarming), and I see no viable reason for this to have been a ban, let alone to have ArbCom involved. If I'm not mistaken, aren't users supposed to be notified when ArbCom investigates them, or when a CU looks in to them? Someone care to provide the diffs to those notifications, or were they never made? I thought this was Wikipedia, not Nazi Germany, because Arbcom is starting to look like the 3rd Reich. (Go ahead, block me for that Risker. It'll REALLY help your case here.) AndrewN ^talk 01:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to at least partially agree with AndrewN, but let's stay civil here. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 01:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to block you for, AndrewN; I'm really sorry that this is unpleasant for you and the many people who have been kind to and befriended User:Sophie. Risker (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x2) It is possible that she was blocked for posting personal information as a minor and the edits oversighted. I'll look for that policy; I remember seeing it somewhere.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Child protection. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 01:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's her AGE that she posted. She posted her AGE. Many many many other editors post their AGE. She said she's willing to talk about her, shall we say colorful, past, but that's no reason to block. I mean, come on. If editors can be blocked for posting their age, I'm sure there are a few thousand that need to be blocked right about now. Sophie and I have been talking in IRC about this, and she says quote: "[19:37:04] <SophJ> can someone please just tell me whats going on? I dont know what is going on, and i dont even know what my block is for and i can not say anything or ask any questions because no one is talking to me." Could someone please provide the edit diffs where she was notified about the Arbcom Investigation, CU investigation, and also show the CU request and reasoning for it? That might clear a lot up here. AndrewN ^talk 01:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sophie can email Arbcom to request unblock, but my post above does explain the reason for the block. Risker (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Support

We're all just as confused as you are. Hope this gets sorted out soon! Sven Manguard _Talk 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! Sophie did nothing wrong, please tell us and her! JoeGazz ▲ 01:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is being addressed directly with the blocked user. Please relax, folks. Risker (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to know what this is about, since I recently adopted a user that apparently is her brother (User:Picopa). I believe Picopa was blocked as a result of whatever is going on here, although he has been unblocked and the block log entry revdeleted. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 22:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picopa remains blocked as a result of what is going on here. KnightLago (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, correct. I was looking at the wrong log. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 01:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interfering with Office actions

If this user is ever unblocked, they need to explain this edit. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]