Shoebringer
Welcome
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Adding magistrate judges
editHello Shoebringer!
I see you tried adding magistrate judges. While I assume good faith with your edits, and understand why you wanted to add magistrate judges, per the following discussion, U.S. Magistrate Judges and U.S. Bankruptcy Judges are NOT inherently notable. See the discussion here:Are U.S. Magistrate Judges and U.S. Bankruptcy Judges inherently notable? Please also see:Wikipedia:Notability also WP:JUDGE. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out on my talk page, I'm more than happy to help! Happy editing! Snickers2686 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Shoebringer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I made three reverts to the page on Candace Owens. Because this page was subject to the rule of only 1 revert in 24 hours, I was blocked for 24 hours. I was told my block would expire after 24 hours. Then, my block was changed to an indefinite block.
In all my other edits, no admin or anyone else has complained that I violated any rules. One editor questioned my adding magistrate judges to the pages on federal courts.But, I explained my rationale, and the other editor apparently conceded that I was right, because he no longer reverted my additions of magistrates to the pages of federal courts.
Other than that, no one has questioned any of the edits I made.
That means that I was indefinitely blocked for making two edits in violation of the one-revert-in-24-hours rule.
The punishment you have given me seems excessively harsh, and against Wikipedia's blocking policy. In the blocking policy, it says,
" Administrators should consider:
- the severity of the behavior;
- whether the user has engaged in that behavior before."
Making two reverts in 24 hours is not sever behavior, and I have not done it before.
The blocking policy further says,
"Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy."
I didn't make significant disruption or threats of disruption, or any major breaches of policy.
For that reason, I request unblock.Shoebringer (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have been blocked because technical "CheckUser" evidence indicates you have been abusing multiple accounts. You will need to deal with that if you wish to be unblocked. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:15, 12 June 2020 (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.
Shoebringer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to see the checkuser evidence you claim you have. Can you send me this evidence? Shoebringer (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser policy prohibits the sharing of Checkuser evidence, even with admins who do not have Checkuser privilege. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2020 (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.
Shoebringer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
That's ridiculous. You block me, and then you say you can't share checkuser evidence with me, the blocked user? Under the Sixth Amendment, I have the right to be confronted by the evidence against me in a US court. Is Wikipedia some kind of Star Chamber or something? @ST47: I demand that you send me the Checkuser evidence you used as the basis for my indef block. Shoebringer (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are deeply confused about the Sixth Amendment. I have revoked talk page access, though you are free to use WP:UTRS to request reinstatement of talk page access if you can clearly explain how the Sixth Amendment does not apply here, or if you have other compelling reasons to do so. Yamla (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2020 (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.
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Sockpuppet investigation
edit
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shoebringer, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.