User talk:Stormfront81

Welcome!
Hello, Stormfront81, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Help! I don't know why I've been blocked!

 * Any relation to the user of the account?  Kuru   (talk)  02:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't know who Storm8182 is. Stormfront81 (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A CheckUser has tied your IP address to that of Storm8182. Given the similarity in your names... you can see where we're coming from. See this for more information. m.o.p  09:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link, m.o.p ? I searched the SPI files for a case on  Storm8182 and Stormfront81 and got zero results. I think a blocked user should be able to see the evidence that is the basis for their block, especially if they plan on appealing the block.   Liz  Read! Talk! 00:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The word of a CU. Note that there's not much in the way of evidence that can be seen, as the inner workings and results of CU are accessible only by CheckUsers. m.o.p  15:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "I found some sort of relation between Storm8181, Storm8282 and Stormfront81. That relation now...I can't confirm, but I am pretty darn sure of the connection, especially with the article overlap and name overlap."
 * This seems far from proof that would come as the result of a SPI, m.o.p . Maybe a SPI should be filed so this block wouldn't rely on a CUer being "pretty darn sure".  This doesn't sound to me like "technical evidence" and if it does exist, it should be documented in case future sock puppets appear.
 * I mean, once an account is labeled as a sock, there is no appeal possible. Liz  Read! Talk! 15:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * DeltaQuad is definitely a trustworthy editor; I'm sure that there was reason for the block. Looking at the list of associated accounts, the socks were most likely found to be evading the original vandalism block.
 * Either way, I'm sure DQ can set the record straight. m.o.p  20:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Liz, while I do understand your concerns, I remember this check specifically because it was not an SPI case. The reason why I didn't file the paperwork for it was because I deemed it unnecessary at the time because 1) I didn't think he was going to come back 2) the username and contributions provides behavioral evidence itself (I mean combinations of Storm and 81/82, and cross editing articles) 3) When I make a CU block, it's because I'm sure. If there is a hint that it might not be related, I leave it at SPI for a second set of eyes on behavior. If you have further questions, feel free to ping me or message my talkpage. Also, technical evidence does go stale after a while (aka I can't check it anymore) and that's simply what has happened here. The user waited till the offending edits were stale to ask for an appeal...two months after the block. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * DQ, I guess I don't understand these sock blocks outside of a sock investigation where any Editor or Admin can see what's happening. I know Admins indefinitely block Editors all of the time (not always providing a justification) but, as far as I've seen, once an account is labeled a "sock", there is no process of appeal. It's a label that an Editor can't challenge once they've been blocked. While I'm admittedly a recently active user, I've only seen one case where an account was cleared of being a sock after being blocked as one and that took quite a lot of effort and communication to convince the powers that be that the assumptions and results were inconclusive and, in this case, inaccurate. Facing an unfair sock block, most users would just start a new account and then, ironically, they could be charged with creating a sock. But what is the alternative when you can't appeal a block?
 * My comments weren't a judgment on your competency or diligence but were more a comment on the lack of certainty in this case. And in the case of sock blocks, like I said, once an account is blocked as a sock, there seems to be no coming back. Liz  Read! Talk! 18:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Liz, I and my fellow checkusers are willing to review any legitimate block appeal. A lot of the times, it does not need our intervention because there is clear behavioral evidence which sums it up, or it doesn't even come to our attention. That may seem why such blocks are not easy to get undone. But then again, usually if we are blocking for socking, especially checkuserblocks, then we are convinced it's a sock. There are cases also where the checkuserblock template goes up, and there is nothing for others to review, sometimes that is just how it has to be. I do agree there is some uncertainty here, but the behavioral evidence in my opinion covers for such uncertainty. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  09:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @DeltaQuad I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this all to me. I become concerned when I see Editors throw the "sock" label at those they oppose so my concern is less with individual cases and more about the process. I'm not sure what separates "legitimate" block appeal from just an ordinary block appeal but I hope you do see the irony that an Editor might have to create a sock account to challenge a sock block since it seems like Talk Page access is also often removed.
 * But I can see that you approach these investigations with care and do thorough examinations. Personally, I'm reassured when I look at SPI pages and also see cases where suspected sock accounts are also cleared because there is no connection between them. I'm sure the checkusers are probably almost as irritated as the accused Editors to have to spend time on frivolous, baseless investigations.
 * Thanks again, DeltaQuad, and my apologies to Stormfront81 for carrying on this conversation on their Talk Page. Liz  <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)