User talk:2600:100D:BE06:725:5043:5F99:6682:E5E


 * Without more information, I'm not sure why you believe that this rangeblock is improper (original request was only the text "improper rangeblock", which has been changed since I started typing this). As such, I will mark this block as awaiting a response from the blocked user.


 * I can help answer a few of your questions below, but I am not an arbitrator, just a Checkuser. As such, I can only speak for myself, and not the Committee, WMF, or other checkusers.


 * 1) Not being on the committee, it would be improper for me to answer this question.
 * 2) We follow the same policy that any other admin does when placing these blocks. The policy can be found at: Blocking policy. The only thing special about checkuser blocks is that they should not be overturned by non-checkuser administrators, as they often involve non-public information. More information on this can be found at: WP:CUBL.
 * 3) I am not a foundation employee, just a volunteer.
 * I hope this helps. SQL Query Me!  22:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It is also worth noting that this block is "anon only". Meaning that if you create an account elsewhere, you can still edit. SQL Query Me!  22:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I know I can create an account on a different IP but I fear if I use the mobile IP range it won’t last if the blocker discovers it. Therefore I asked arbcom to clarify the cubl policy of unsysopping an editor for reverting this block .  2600:100D:BE06:725:5043:5F99:6682:E5E (talk) 2600:100D:BE06:725:5043:5F99:6682:E5E (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

questions

 * 1) Why do you take reverting a “checkuser” block so seriously? How does it violate privacy policy?
 * 2) are there any guidelines for setting and applying these long term “Checkuser” blocks?
 * 3) Are checkuser editors official employees on WMF?