User talk:MissSpleler

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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't used Wikipedia for a while now, but when I try to edit any page it says "You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia." and "Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto". That tells me nothing. Can you reset my account, or do I need to apply for a new one?

Decline reason:

You have been blocked as a sleeper account, because information obtained using the checkuser tool indicates that it is likely you have abused multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2014 (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.

View the page it links you to. You were blocked because your data was very similar to that of a sockpuppeter, and Rschen7754 thought your name was a joke by the puppet master (and I agree). DO NOT get a new account, as that only looks worse to a reviewing admin. Do you have a defense? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 01:38, 8 September 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I agree, and regret inflicting it on the Wikipedia community, but my daddy always called me Little Miss Speller - because I was a poor speller. Can I change my name to something more serious then, and get back in please? And what's the time-out on an account before it gets locked-out as a sleeper? MissSpleler (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no time out for sleeper sockpuppet accounts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:17, 9 September 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Right, I'm with you now (I hope). I thought my account had been classed as a sleeper due to inactivity, and was then locked down. After following more links, I see my mistake, sorry about that. It seems my account has been assumed to belong to an existing user because of a match on ip address and user agent. The only rational explanation I can think of for that is that I wasn't the only one who got the same smartphone for Christmas, and on the same network provider (one of the largest available here), and I wasn't the only one who used it for accessing Wikipedia (one of the world's most popular sites apparently). Presumably, if I was a sock, I could just create a new account anyway, and wouldn't need to try to resurect a dead one from years ago. Please let me loose to strut my stuff! MissSpleler (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I wish you actually had been joking so I could tell you the liquid I just spent several minutes cleaning off my monitor was a compliment. "The only rational explanation I can think of for that is that I wasn't the only one who got the same smartphone for Christmas, and on the same network provider (one of the largest available here), and I wasn't the only one who used it for accessing Wikipedia (one of the world's most popular sites apparently)" Oh please. Do you think we just fell off a truck yesterday? If that actually was meant as a rational explanation then Wikipedia is better off without you editing it. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2014 (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.

Three strikes and you're out.

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 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 you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]