User talk:NJ Wine

I saw your username on an AfD I made, and it jumped out at me. It's nice to know that I'm not alone in loving the life of a New Jersey-an. What region do you live in? I was born in North, but I moved to Central several years ago.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 00:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Yutsi's talk page.

Thanks for the explanation - that makes more sense.--

Well put, thank you. I saw your Sheilaism userbox: I'm a Drmiesist, so we can happily agree on everything and nothing at the same time. But that's just my opinion. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Initially I was going to list my religion as Jedi, which is a common practice for the census in Great Britain, but I decided I liked Sheilaism better since nobody else on Wikipedia had that. NJ Wine (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that I have raised your

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).

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

---

Request reason:

When I tried to make some edits this evening, I was surprised to find out that I was indefinitely blocked without any notice. I am writing this unblock request as an IP editor because I am not even allowed to edit my own talk page as

administrator noticeboards) that many editors use, or were separated by a long period of time (e.g., he last editted a page in March, and I editted the same page in June). The other so-called evidence of sockpuppetry is that both dwainwr123 and I sometimes use a double-dash (--). I don't know much about dwainwr123's contributions, but I don't see the use of a double-dash as opposed to a single-dash as indicative of anything. I am not a sockpuppet of dwainwr123, and I do not believe that the evidence in question is not even close to the level of reasonable suspicion needed to block a user. Additionally, I would like to know why a socketpuppetry investigation was initiated against me, and why I wasn't notified of it before any action was taken? 71.251.35.208 (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

There is plenty of behavioural evidence, by no means all of which was mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation. In addition there is checkuser evidence. (Checkuser evidence is not restricted to just IP information.)

talk) 13:44, 27 June 2012 (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.

You misunderstand the sockpuppet investigation. The evidence provided there of suspicion was in order to make out a case that a checkuser should be initiated; that is, asking that a person with checkuser access compare the IP address(es) you and dwainwr123 edited from to see whether they were the same. The notes at the bottom of the sockpuppet investigation are that this was done and it was confirmed that you were editing from the same address(es). I personally am gravely trouble by certain aspects of sockpuppet investigations where a checkuser is not performed (i.e., where a block is issued based only on suspicion) but here we don't have that problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, I just re-read through the investigation), and it does not state that an IP search was done. I do all my editting from home so I seriously doubt that I'd be using the same IP address as someone else. There is a checkuser log, but it just lists the articles that were editted. 71.125.74.99 (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]