User talk:Rampant Prejudice

@Bbb23: What are you talking about????

According to Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_and_the_privacy_policy:

Checks must be made only in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing.
The disclosure of actual checkuser data (such as IP addresses) is subject to the privacy policy except where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to non-checkusers to allow the making of IP blocks or rangeblock.

Please answer that

Did you find any disruption or bad faith editing before your check? Or you just check for fun?
Are you suggesting that my IPs were identical to your recently blocked IPs and releasing them to the public?? You need to provide the evidence of vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way regardless of my actual IPs.

I am serious about your action so I have to notify the members of Arbitration Committee per Wikipedia:CheckUser.

@AGK, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, Joe Roe, and Worm That Turned:

--Rampant Prejudice (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that the very act of evading a block is considered disruptive behaviour. An account reasonably suspected of socking may be checked and blocked regardless of the quality of the edits conducted under the evading account. Mkdw ^talk 03:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator[edit]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I believe there must be something wrong. (See my statement above.) Please help!

--Rampant Prejudice (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to dispute the block, please make an unblock request(if needed, instructions are at WP:AAB). 331dot (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wouldn't stand for that sort of check from the Check User. The legitimacy of the Check User's use of the privilege is very controversial. Rampant Prejudice (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Talk page access revoked to prevent you wasting yet more of our time. Yamla (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2019 (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.

m:Privacy_policy is Wikimedia's fundamental rule! It's not about if my IP is really identical to which from the CU's illegal revelation. It's about the CU's attitude towards Wikipedians' privacy! I feel Bbb23 doesn't treat people's privacy seriously! This is the biggest concern! If Wikimedia is trustworthy, then CUs must have a good understanding of how priceless Wikipedians' privacy are! -Rampant Prejudice (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]