User talk:VengeancePrime


 * 1. Can someone please explain WHAT is going on?
 * 2. Can someone show or tell me how all this is determined?
 * 3. Can someone fix it too? I'm not sure what all that is about.

Unblock

 * 1) Looking at Appealing a block it reads: "If your account has been blocked by mistake, it will be reactivated very quickly, as soon as you let an administrator know of the problem. Otherwise, there is a rapid appeal process which obtains quick review by other independent administrators, and brief discussion of the matter."
 * 2) Something I didn't know is in the second section: "Do you use an ISP or web accelerator that involves shared IPs? Common examples include AOL, Comcast, StarHub, schools, colleges, or Google Web Accelerator." I have used Comcast, various government or government-connected computers, and an airport. That I can think of offhand. (for that matter, I'm editing on a public wireless right now!)
 * 3) Guide to appealing blocks finally gave a template to use. Here it is:

Take 2

 * (And IIRC, this is supposed to reviewed by an UNINVOLVED admin. The one who deleted all my userpages within minutes of this block would not be "uninvolved".)
 * Per the instruction above: "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the unblock template again"


 * What? I made it clear? I don't even know what you're talking about.
 * How did I make anything clear?
 * And that's like saying murders always claim they're not murders...non-murders would too, so does that mean they're guilty? None of this is making sense.
 * I'm being banned because my name is similar to someone else? No other reason? And can I see this "evidence" of checkuser? Why is it not on the checkuser page? Seems suspicious. I'm sure it's all in good faith, but still not reliable.
 * I would appreciate some sort of actual, factual explanation.
 * I'm sure you can understand why our checkusers don't release the actual data that allowed us to identify returning users; that would make it easier for people to find ways to avoid making the same mistakes, and then we'd have to come up with even cleverer ways of detecting them. However, if checkuser says you're confirmed, you're confirmed- there's very little point in continuing to deny it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) The unblock page itself says that a checkuser isn't 100%
 * 2) So there's no challenging it? "so-and-so says so, and so it is?"
 * 3) I'm not trying to say "due process" (cause that is lawyer-like), but there's a rush to judgement/leap of faith here.

Protected
Your talk page has been protected from editing to prevent you from using the unblock template to appeal your block. According to the directive of the Arbitration Committee, you must appeal your block directly to them at arbcom-l AT lists DOT wikimedia DOT org. Non-arbitrators are not to deal with cases relating to pedophilia. Your talk page will be protected for the duration of your block; if ArbCom decides to unblock you, an active arbitrator will unprotect your page. Until that time, your ban, as placed on you as User:VigilancePrime, is in full effect. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)