244:
message will give you an autoblock ID number, the name of the blocking admin, your IP address, and the user who is causing your block. You have to provide this information because we have no way to consider your request without it. (3) Your IP can be blocked directly. Again, in that case, we need to know what your IP is and who the admin is that blocked it, otherwise, we have no way to know how to remove it. Alison has blocked several IP addresses today and if one of those is your's, I'm sorry, but it was being used abusively and cannot be unblocked. --
26:
168:
for HD DVD is that this content belongs in the article. I have restored the content and no other editor has removed it since. However, Locke Cole requested a checkuser on me. I am not sure why it was granted, but I am not another editor to the HD DVD or similar articles. Locke Cole appears to be gaming the system to prevent other editors who happen to share the same opinion from editing these articles.
82:
529:
688:
red does because Warner have been releasing on BOTH formats before the CES announcement. Because Warner have always been releasing on both formats it would makes sense that the chart be both red and blue, or a different colour altogether. I just wanted to say that on your talk page instead of pointing it out on the articles talk page.
703:
You are absolutely right. I should have been more clear. I meant blue not offset by equal (or nearly equal) amounts of red. So an even purple halfway between blue and red fulfills the requirement. Or both red and blue stripes, covering (near) equal areas of the slice. But purple and blue stripes
687:
You posted "I object to using stripes of blue for Warner Bros since they should not be colored blue until the day they become Blu-ray exclusive, on June 1st, 2008". Although I have been fighting for this chart, I have to say that the colour blue has every right to be in the warner slice as the colour
167:
Improper block. Another editor, Locke Cole, removed valuable content from the HD DVD article. I saw his inappropriate removal, created an account, and restored the material. He placed the boilerplate warning message above and proceeded to remove the content again. The consensus on the discussion page
501:
Thank you for coming to visit me on my user page. In response to your hurt feelings, I'll tell you what I really think. I really think that you (Ray Andrew, aka
Proctor Spock, aka, some number of other sock puppets) are a PR guy for HD DVD. I figure that with so much money at stake, both Blu-Ray
243:
is empty, so I know that you have not been blocked directly. (2) You can be autoblocked as a result of sharing the same IP address as another user who has been blocked. This is done by the software and, for your privacy, admins have no way to see this. If you have been autoblocked, your block
502:
and HD DVD must have people editing wikipedia, and you definitely defend the latter format like it's your full time job. You have no other wikipedia edits whatsoever. I guess I should be jealous, since you get paid to edit wikipedia, while I do it for free!
41:
prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
641:
Not a delay. I saw it, and was prepared to let it go, but I'm seeing a pattern of poor behavior from both you and Ray andrew, and I felt the need to warn you in advance that this kind of behavior is also unacceptable.
284:, you can discuss it with her and explain any results that she may have found on your IP, but there is nothing that anyone else can do. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. --
431:
334:
305:
263:
221:
546:
542:
179:
You have not been blocked directly. If you have been autoblocked, we need to know the autoblock ID, the user who is causing your block, and your IP address. —
213:
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.
122:
239:
There are three ways someone can be blocked. (1) You can be blocked directly. That is the only thing an admin has the ability to check. Your
198:
484:
I have not personally attacked you. Again: the checkuser request resulted in a "likely" response that you and Ray are the same editor. —
117:
435:
308:, the IP that this editor has been using has been hardblocked for other reasons and should not be unblocked. Really sorry about that -
651:
619:
587:
558:
493:
67:
55:
262:
The corresponding IP for this block was not being used abusively. Editor Locke Cole confused me with another editor and had
724:
Hope you haven't been discouraged by the rude welcome you got over the last few weeks. I hope you continue to contribute. --
50:
from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
43:
38:
95:
47:
136:
89:
94:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
281:
538:
517:
413:(1) Why would a checkuser case for two named editors result in a block of an IP address but neither editor?
693:
575:
me, doing so is considered harassment and can lead to a block. I am specifically referring to this edit:
51:
705:
660:
628:
597:
459:
338:
267:
225:
100:
363:
the result of the checkuser case. I'm not at liberty to reveal it, though, due to the privacy policy -
30:
729:
647:
643:
615:
611:
583:
579:
554:
550:
507:
489:
485:
63:
59:
689:
572:
207:
17:
725:
503:
329:
So that I understand you, you are saying the blocking of the IP underlying my account was
434:
rise to the level of investigating a named editor's IP address? How does this mesh with "
25:
266:. I do not know how, but the result she got is inaccurate. I am not Ray andrew.
528:
364:
309:
289:
249:
184:
733:
713:
697:
668:
654:
636:
622:
605:
590:
561:
511:
496:
467:
379:
346:
324:
293:
275:
253:
233:
188:
70:
304:
While I have no comment as to what this editor has been doing regarding
285:
245:
180:
34:
704:
like in the article's current chart do not. Thanks for the catch.
610:
I have his page watchlisted since he gave me rollback privileges. —
224:. Alison appears to be causing the block at Locke Cole's request.
545:
for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with
80:
627:
That is quite a delay you are experiencing. My apologies.
195:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
215:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
576:
240:
150:
146:
140:
131:
127:
113:
109:
105:
222:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ray_andrew
88:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
220:This is confusing. The block is a result of this:
543:Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Ray andrew
8:
33:according to the reverts you have made on
430:(2) How did the evidence provided at the
29:You currently appear to be engaged in an
7:
596:How did you find that edit of mine?
54:among editors. If necessary, pursue
549:before editing the evidence page. —
14:
527:
24:
396:Some questions to think about:
46:. If you continue, you may be
1:
523:
734:00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
714:04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
698:06:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
669:00:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
659:I'll take your word for it.
655:23:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
637:23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
623:23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
606:23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
591:23:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
562:03:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
512:19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
497:02:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
468:11:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
380:00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
347:22:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
325:22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
294:21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
276:21:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
254:21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
234:20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
189:20:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
92:, who declined the request.
71:08:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
749:
720:Welcome to Knowledge (XXG)
683:Comment on the chart thing
264:Alison perform a checkuser
537:You have been accused of
199:guide to appealing blocks
709:
664:
632:
601:
463:
342:
282:Special:Emailuser/Alison
271:
229:
85:
547:notes for the suspect
432:request for checkuser
137:change block settings
84:
440:for difficult cases.
541:. Please refer to
335:the checkuser case
306:the checkuser case
86:
56:dispute resolution
535:
534:
44:three-revert rule
39:three-revert rule
740:
531:
524:
480:Personal attacks
377:
374:
372:
322:
319:
317:
212:
206:
156:
154:
143:
125:
123:deleted contribs
83:
37:. Note that the
28:
748:
747:
743:
742:
741:
739:
738:
737:
722:
685:
569:
522:
482:
436:Checkuser is a
370:
368:
365:
315:
313:
310:
218:
210:
204:
203:, then use the
192:
170:
144:
134:
120:
103:
96:blocking policy
81:
78:
76:Unblock request
22:
12:
11:
5:
746:
744:
721:
718:
717:
716:
684:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
568:
565:
533:
532:
521:
515:
481:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
352:
351:
350:
349:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
257:
256:
193:
177:
173:Decline reason
165:
161:Request reason
158:
79:
77:
74:
21:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
745:
736:
735:
731:
727:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:Proctor spock
702:
701:
700:
699:
695:
691:
682:
670:
666:
662:
661:Proctor spock
658:
657:
656:
653:
649:
645:
640:
639:
638:
634:
630:
629:Proctor spock
626:
625:
624:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
603:
599:
598:Proctor spock
595:
594:
593:
592:
589:
585:
581:
577:
574:
566:
564:
563:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
530:
526:
525:
519:
516:
514:
513:
509:
505:
499:
498:
495:
491:
487:
479:
469:
465:
461:
460:Proctor spock
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
441:
439:
433:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
381:
378:
376:
362:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
348:
344:
340:
339:Proctor spock
336:
332:
328:
327:
326:
323:
321:
307:
303:
302:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
278:
277:
273:
269:
268:Proctor spock
265:
261:
260:
259:
258:
255:
251:
247:
242:
238:
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
226:Proctor spock
223:
217:
216:
209:
202:
200:
191:
190:
186:
182:
176:
174:
169:
164:
162:
157:
152:
148:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
119:
115:
114:global blocks
111:
110:active blocks
107:
102:
101:Proctor spock
97:
93:
91:
90:administrator
75:
73:
72:
69:
65:
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
40:
36:
32:
27:
19:
16:
723:
686:
570:
539:sockpuppetry
536:
518:Sockpuppetry
500:
483:
437:
366:
360:
333:a result of
330:
311:
219:
214:
196:
194:
178:
172:
171:
166:
160:
159:
132:creation log
99:
87:
23:
438:last resort
280:If you use
726:Ray andrew
644:Locke Cole
612:Locke Cole
580:Locke Cole
551:Locke Cole
504:Pisomojado
486:Locke Cole
128:filter log
60:Locke Cole
690:JayKeaton
573:wikistalk
241:block log
197:read the
147:checkuser
106:block log
52:consensus
567:Stalking
359:Yes, it
118:contribs
31:edit war
571:Do not
208:unblock
141:unblock
48:blocked
20:warning
35:HD DVD
18:WP:3RR
201:first
730:talk
710:talk
694:talk
665:talk
633:talk
602:talk
520:case
508:talk
464:talk
343:talk
290:talk
272:talk
250:talk
230:talk
185:talk
58:. —
578:. —
361:was
337:?
331:not
151:log
98:).
732:)
712:)
696:)
667:)
650:•
646:•
635:)
618:•
614:•
604:)
586:•
582:•
557:•
553:•
510:)
492:•
488:•
466:)
442:"?
371:is
345:)
316:is
292:)
274:)
252:)
232:)
211:}}
205:{{
187:)
175::
163::
145:•
139:•
135:•
130:•
126:•
121:•
116:•
112:•
108:•
66:•
62:•
728:(
708:(
692:(
663:(
652:c
648:t
642:—
631:(
620:c
616:t
600:(
588:c
584:t
559:c
555:t
506:(
494:c
490:t
462:(
375:n
373:o
369:l
367:A
341:(
320:n
318:o
314:l
312:A
288:(
286:B
270:(
248:(
246:B
228:(
183:(
181:B
155:)
153:)
149:(
104:(
68:c
64:t
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
