User talk:Larserikolson

Blocked in Error?
Larserikolson (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Lars-Erik Olson


 * The evidence available in your editing history is too limited to decide the issue, but the fact that after more than a year's absence you suddenly re-appear shortly after a known sockpuppet was blocked is striking. The unblock request needs to be assessed by a CheckUser. Perhaps Bbb23, the CheckUser who blocked this account, would be willing to look at this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: To clarify the situation for you, perhaps I should explain that Bbb23 would not be able to decline this unblock request, since that can only be done by another, independent, CheckUser/Administrator, but he could accept the request, or he could offer an opinion to be taken into account by another CheckUser. Alternatively, another CheckUser could decide one way or another alone. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you have any idea why your IP address and technical information might show up as identical to a blocked user's? Huon (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please, can a CheckUser look into this?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Look into what exactly?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether it is possible to unblock this account. Whether it is possible that the technical connections is a coincidence.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How would a CheckUser determine whether the technical connection is a "coincidence"? This user has made a grand total of three edits since November 2015, two back then, and one now protesting the block. The ones in November 2015 were checked by me. The technical connection was iron-clad. Do you want me to check the third and most recent edit? I'm not sure it will tell us much, but I am willing if that's what you want.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know. According to our policies, a checkuser block may not be overturned without consent from a checkuser. In this case, it seams to me that the block may be wrong and that this person might not be related to . That is based on edits, since of course I can't see the technical data. Now, I'm asking you for consent to unblock, but you say that you can't determine anything. Than, what is the whole point of that consent-giving? I'm a bit lost. Is there any chance this account can be unblocked, or does the previous CU result make it impossible to unblock, ever? What do we do in such cases?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * . I'll check first and then see where we are.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The user's technical data is still completely consistent with Atomic Meltdown. I will not consent to an unblock on this record, but doesn't mean he can't be unblocked. Another CheckUser might feel differently, and he has recourse to ArbCom. The technical data was so strong, and the account was new at the time. I'm curious. He didn't protest the block at the time. Why now? What does he even want to do at Wikipedia? I have nothing more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)