User talk:SalmonSteaks

I'm not an admin nor am I a CheckUser, so I can't officially review the block, but I can offer a few comments. Given the situation with Airtuna08, I wouldn't expect to be unblocked any time soon. While I'd normally be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, a CheckUser situation inclines me to think otherwise and support the block.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The block reason is "checkuserblock: Airtuna08". That means it is not related to any specific article you edited.
 * 2) Because this is based on CheckUser, a regular admin can't review the block, only another CheckUser can.
 * 3) There is evidence that this is a WP:Sockpuppet account related to . This evidence comes from a combination of technical log data only CheckUsers and other functionaries would have access to see, as well as behavioral and editing trends.


 * I do not know who that is. I just re-joined Wikipedia a couple hours ago, and itt would be impossible for the IPs to match since I'm the only one who uses my laptop. *HUGS* >SalmonSteaks (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * CheckUsers can match more than an IP address though. I'm loathe to doubt Courcelle's word on this one though.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted, haha. I guess to use Wikipedia you have to be a computer science major who knows all about networking! Very hilarious indeed. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of you peers. Not guilty until proven innocent by one user who didn't like me editing. What did I walk into? It's a mad house! (yea, I sung that). Well I love you all. *HUGS* --SalmonSteaks (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The presumption of innocence applies only to the courts. It's certainly a nice principle to have, but one that doesn't have to apply to private organizations and their websites, any more than it would to your own house (if I accuse you of stealing and ask you to leave it, you can't stay on the grounds that you're entitled to due process before I call the police and report you for trespassing). In any event, said process, to the extent we have it, is extended to the accused sockmaster, and there has been considerable and continuing discussion on User talk:Airtuna08 between that account and the accusers. Now, I must admit, some of the information on your user page, and my personal familiarity with Airtuna from past interaction, leads me to believe, without checkuser, that you and Airtuna are the same person. If so, then your userpage claim that you lost the account password is a lie as Airtuna08 continues to edit on that talk page. It would not bode well for an unblock if you were deliberately deceptive. Due process here does not mean we have to prove you're not the other person ... it means we have to establish a reasonable basis that you are, and I feel that burden has been met. I think you're at the point where you need to declare all other accounts, whether we're aware of them or not, and state that you will use one and only one from this point on, if you wish to have any hope of unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't a clue who this Airtuna is but this whole thing is strange. I would rather not edit here anyway if people are invading my personal privavy by comparing my computer usage to another user(s). There are many people you can tie together than based on username and common issue. In all honesty, I signed up for an account with good intentions. My edits were quickly reverted for good reason but I acknowledged that after he/she pointed me to new information. BTW, are you actually a paid wiki employee or is this just some glorified magic the gathering-esk online forum where you all get titles and certain rights after awhile? If the ladder is true, you are just as outside that private organization as me just using the site's public right to edit. I suggest you fellas leave your mother's dark basement and get outside once and awhile and stop hawking people's well intentioned edits. *HUGS* >SalmonSteaks (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC) :) :)

July 2012
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts followed by misuse of your talk page to attack other editors. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at . A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom unblock appeal
The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the appeal of and has declined to unblock that account and related accounts either known or discovered during the investigation. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.

For the Arbitration Committee.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  15:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)