ColouredSpots (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please point to where any one of my accounts have been used abusively. I have genuine reasons for using multiple accounts. Why were these not asked for? Why was a CheckUser performed in private without leaving a log and without evidence of abuse? Please point to any vandalism. Please point to a single edit that is against policy. Please point to an edit that wasn't productive.
Decline reason:
Per discussion below. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Creating an illusion of support
No - Circumventing policies or sanctions No
- Avoiding scrutiny
Second opinion requested See also legitimate uses - "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts No
- Role accounts No
- Deceptively seeking positions of community trust No
- Administrators with multiple accounts No
- Posing as a neutral commentator No
- Voting more than once in polls No
- Misusing new pages patrol No
- Strawman socks No
- Editing logged out in order to mislead No
Very bad block. ColouredSpots (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Seeing as you seem to be unable/unwilling to provide details of why your second account is legitimate, then it's hard to judge. If it's a privacy issue, then you should be e-mailing details to Arb's or as a minimum the unblock e-mail address. It's not possible to make a determination based on the above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is a privacy issue, although my privacy is already now pretty much blown. The short version: I can only access Wikipedia from my work's computers, but they log what we do online. We're allowed to edit Wikipedia, but the extent of the monitoring isn't clear and the policy appears to be that they do random checks - which could mean anything. So moving on from one account -- after a low-level of productive, minor, occasional edits that have always improved the encyclopaedia and/or removed vandalism and/or brought important systemic problems (the misuse of sh*t that newbies can't correct to shit; that band that the whole of Twitter had been vandalising since last July, etc), to another account, for the most part completely abandoning the past account -- and resuming constructive editing under a new one protects my ability to edit at all without being sacked. Except when someone performs a checkuser for no reason and then ties most of the accounts together, thus bringing down my harmless attempt at privacy protection. ColouredSpots (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Opining as a fellow editor and not having done anything regarding CU in this case, my advice to you is to re-think your strategy. A company that would monitor traffic would surely be able to see what internal IP addresses traffic is going to, regardless of the username. In general, I would say it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to solve your potential editing problem, although I do understand we sometimes allow unusual circumstances to prevail. As suggested above, if there is a real privacy issue, email to ARBCOM would probably be a better avenue. Frank | talk 13:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to see how your edit summaries with this account are in any way constructive or helpful. I also concur with the opinions above -if you think there is a legitimate issue (although I frankly don't see it), email ArbCom. TNXMan 14:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Opining as a fellow editor and not having done anything regarding CU in this case, my advice to you is to re-think your strategy. A company that would monitor traffic would surely be able to see what internal IP addresses traffic is going to, regardless of the username. In general, I would say it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to solve your potential editing problem, although I do understand we sometimes allow unusual circumstances to prevail. As suggested above, if there is a real privacy issue, email to ARBCOM would probably be a better avenue. Frank | talk 13:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is a privacy issue, although my privacy is already now pretty much blown. The short version: I can only access Wikipedia from my work's computers, but they log what we do online. We're allowed to edit Wikipedia, but the extent of the monitoring isn't clear and the policy appears to be that they do random checks - which could mean anything. So moving on from one account -- after a low-level of productive, minor, occasional edits that have always improved the encyclopaedia and/or removed vandalism and/or brought important systemic problems (the misuse of sh*t that newbies can't correct to shit; that band that the whole of Twitter had been vandalising since last July, etc), to another account, for the most part completely abandoning the past account -- and resuming constructive editing under a new one protects my ability to edit at all without being sacked. Except when someone performs a checkuser for no reason and then ties most of the accounts together, thus bringing down my harmless attempt at privacy protection. ColouredSpots (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking as an employee of a company, I concur with Frank's comments. You're only kidding yourself if you think you can hide your editing from your company by changing user ID's from time to time. And if it's fear of a sack from your work you be haen, you would be best off to stop editing wikipedia from the office altogether. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)