User talk:FatSexuallyActive
FatSexuallyActive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't think it's fair to claim I've been abusing multiple accounts. Yes, I may have previously used another account but I have retired that. It was an account with around 2,000 edits in good standing with a clean block log
Decline reason:
Sockpuppetry aside, your username is obviously trolling user SlimVirgin. — Hesperian 03:24, 17 March 2008 (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.
Heh, I didn't get the play on "SlimVirgin" until now. I assumed this user was somehow goofing on my name, in retaliation for my reporting multiple sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg tonight. For more on the relative scarcity of slim virgins and sexually active fatsos, please refer to this article. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- A fascinating article. For the record, I am not a sock of Spotteddogsdotorg. As for "trolling" SlimVirgin...I merely took inspiration for the name and opted for the opposite. Is having a username that is the opposite of an existing user now against policy? I've never had any interactions with SV under my, now-retired, previous account and don't plan to in the future. A shame, really, as I do like this name. FatSexuallyActive (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
FatSexuallyActive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As per above
Decline reason:
So you just happened to register a new account, and just happened to get involved in an ongoing dispute involving other sockpuppets? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2008 (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.
Yes and I'm more than happy for a checkuser to be carried out in order to show that. FatSexuallyActive (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, a checkuser wouldn't necessarily help [1].--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- It would show my other, retired, account which is in no way related to the problems you've been having with the socker. Though I'd agree that checkuser is not up to much, anyway. The whole Mantanmoreland/SamiHarris/Gary Weiss saga that played out recently showed that! FatSexuallyActive (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
FatSexuallyActive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As per above. I can just about accept that the username may violate policy, but if that is the case I would rather be blocked for that than for sockpuppetry, which isn't the case at all. So either an unblock so I can get on with editing, or an unblock and then a reblock for username policy violation, if there has been a violation, please
Decline reason:
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.