User talk:Factchecker994

Hi! I'm Factchecker994, and this is my Wikipedia talk page!

Just a quick welcome note[edit]

The music sector of Wikipedia has been under attack lately from a long-term block evasive user, in which their usual modus operandi displays edits without consensus or sources to the status of bands and their lineup changes with long, good-faith but in the end ignorant or non-sensical edit summaries to any communication sent their way. I noticed your edit to Thousand Foot Krutch; you seem to have made the right call, so I don't immediately think you have anything to do with it, but it does look reminiscent of some of their behaviors, so I just wanted to clear you in advance that those edits may cause some attention. Related to that, your username and userpage also give a conspicuous impression: "you can ALWAYS expect me to have the correct, 100% factual information to use in case of any edits I may make- no bogus lies and/or misinformation for me!" will most likely be greeted with skepticism. Apologies in advance, and welcome; we hope you enjoy editing here. dannymusiceditor ^oops 07:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your name was probably caught in ClueBot's filter, by the way. I see you've been warned by them. I restored your edit as your rationale made sense. dannymusiceditor ^oops 07:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really call it a "warning", considering it was in error, but I appreciate your understanding of my rationale, and I thank you for restoring my edit! Factchecker994 (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no skepticism with my name, as if it wasn't for fact-checkers like me, this world would be completely lost! They'd also be suffocating in lies and misinformation, which my actions as a fact-checker have helped prevent! So, my name shouldn't cause skepticism whatsoever- in fact, it should do the opposite- it should help people know that they can take my word for anything, because that's the purpose of a fact-checker! Factchecker994 (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Factchecker994 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

False accusations of being a "sockpuppet" without any proof or merit

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. It's quite unambiguous. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As it says, Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Factchecker994 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Libelous claims that our University is a bogus "sockpuppet" for another account that doesn't even exist! Factchecker994 (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not at all a reason for unblock, but with talk page access now revoked there is no point in keeping this request open as the user will be unable to respond to any discussion. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Jpgordon: This is a University IP address, which means that all of the accounts listed under this IP address are different people. The Checkuser is wrong! You have made a mistake! There is no one under the name that we have been falsely accused of that attends this University, we have checked! The Checkuser is obviously unaware that this is a University IP address with over 1000 students!

I just logged into my account today to make some edits, but for some unknown reason, my account has been blocked due to false accusations of being a "sockpuppet", which is not the case. To make matters worse, my fellow University students accounts had the same treatment, despite also not being "sockpuppets". None of our University accounts did anything even remotely wrong- in fact, most of them hadn't even made any edits yet, and because we're University students with busy schedules, we weren't going to be making a lot of edits anyway- just whenever our schedules allow for it! Even the odd few of us who did make edits did nothing wrong, nor did we do any sort of disrupting behavior, and as such we did not deserve to be blocked, nor did we deserve to be falsely accused as being "sockpuppets" of some random account who none of us have even heard of before. We even asked around the University, and there is no one with the name of the user that we have been falsely accused of being a "sockpuppet" of! Blocking users for misinformed reasons is wrong, and should not ever be the case! As such, we ask that our accounts please be restored to us! Thanks in advance for unblocking our accounts/IP addresses! Factchecker994 (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our University IP address has been "banned" without explanation, evidence, or reason![edit]

Our University IP address has been "banned" without explanation, evidence, or reason- while being falsely accused of being a "sockpuppet" for an account that doesn't even exist! The Checkuser is complete and utter BS and is wrong, as there is no person with the name that we have been falsely accused of being a "sockpuppet" of! We do NOT stand for this! We WILL be unblocked, no matter what- our University's dean and chancellor will make certain of that! Factchecker994 (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked[edit]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Since this is so obviously an abusive block evading account, both from a technical analysis and a behavioral analysis, I've removed talk page access. There was an unsuccessful attempt to log into the sockmaster account User:Gamerguy94, followed immediately by a successful login to the blocked sock User:BestDJofAllTime, followed by the most recent string of edits from this account. If this user has some explanation for this, it should be spelled out at WP:UTRS. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]