Page semi-protected

User talk:Kiko4564

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talkpage! My archive of past discussions is here. Please may any anonymous users wishing to contact me email potter4564@gmail.com

wrong forum

I'd suggest reverting your ani request before anyone replies. It's the wrong forum and more likely to attract negative attention than positive. Nobody Ent 14:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Where is the right forum? Kiko4564 (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Make another unblock request on the alt account, but focus only on why you need an alternate account, and how allowing its use would benefit Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 14:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

"If given my last piece of rope, I will not be as stupid and immature to hang myself with it." -- jpgordon::==( o ) 15:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. jpgordon::==( o ) 15:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops

Thanks for that, I usually do edit the sig field but this time it went right past me, not sure why. Will do that in future! Cheers. (posting here against your notice as it appears you're blocked.) --andy4789 · (talk? contribs?) 18:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kiko4564 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked because I was blocked for making requests to be unblocked on my alternate account in the incorrect way by mistake whilst misguided. Also, as evidence of my good faith I have made some recent good edits on commons. Anyway, whilst I'm at it I'm expanding this. For a start when I'm unblocked I'll be doing CV work using Twinkle which I can do as I can clearly cope with it, as can be seen in some of my contributions and you will also need to take into account the slower pace of Twinkle. And as for vandalism, I'll cleanly admit it, I did it almost two years ago also using this account. But not any time recently. I believe that my edits on commons more recently as well as ones I am planning on doing shall serve as evidence of good faith. Also, I'm well aware that just like anything "I did it (...) ago" is not a complete excuse. I am not attempting to excuse myself from my past, only to make things better for myself and clean up this mess. Kiko4564 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Drmies has unblocked you, and presumably forgotten to post here saying so, so I am doing it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

A few comments/questions:

  • have you edited the English Wikipedia either anonymously or using an account since 16-MAR-2012?
  • would you agree to use 1 account and ONLY 1 account from this point forward on en.Wikipedia?
  • could you actually show some "recent good edits" on Commons? I don't see anything either "recent" (April 2012) or "good" (a lot of usertalkpage edits only are shown)

(✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see a little more than a repost of the unblock request that was already denied back in March while you're at it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • With the exception of this talk page (which I am allowed to edit), no.
  • Yes, and this includes appealing any blocks on any accounts. As for account security, I will use other methods such as https.
  • I will do so in due course. Kiko4564 (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
It may be that I am misunderstanding you; are you saying that you intend to use only one account, but also intend to edit using an anonymous IP?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I meant in the context of only making occasional productive edits from a public terminal. Of course, I would only do so if the block on here is lifted because I'd rather make things better than worse for myself. Now, just to clarify is editing anon for me OK or will I need to log in in all circumstances including public terminal use on an occasional basis? Either way is OK with me. I would happily accept on unblock on the condition of not being allowed to use an IP for traceability, as long as that restriction is explicitly stated and made clear. Also, I didn't honestly think that "1 account and ONLY 1 account" would possibly exclude an anon IP. Kiko4564 (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
It does. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, in which case because as an admin you have clarified this, I will be OK with just using this account and no anon IPs or puppets (including for appealing any blocks on any accounts or public computer use). I will simply use https and always login when editing (including from public computers). I no longer intend to edit from a anon IP as this has been clarified as something I will be restricted to not being allowed to do. Also, thanks for clarifying the definition of this term. Kiko4564 (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note the the restrictions you agreed to are a condition of this unblock (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you BWilkins and JamesBWatson. Your agreement to abide by those restrictions (which are, really, part of the normal set of guidelines for any editor), dear Kiko, is the basis for the unblock. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, in which case thank you BWilkins, JamesBWatson and Drmies for unblocking me and cleaning up this mess. Oh and one last thing, I accidentally once edited this talk page once while logged out. Just to let you know. However I know the rules and I will never intentionally edit while logged out or using any other account, ever unless given permission by the admins. For any appeals I will just appeal here while logged in or use the UTRS. Kiko4564 (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Carl Freer

Dear Kiko 4564

With regards to your recent communication reference the recent edit to Carl Freer, you have suggested that I have added in personal analysis. I was hoping you can be more specific.

I made changes to two points that are not of a personal nature.

I will be making the following changes: "under Freer & Eriksson" - I will be editing to: "Under the Directors" as there were more than just these two named parties. Feel free to comment.

Regarding the other change I made - Please Note the following:

Gizmondo Europe Limited could not be declared bankrupt as the insolvency of a company in the United Kingdom is governed an Act of Parliament called the Insolvency Act 1986. It defines the steps an insolvent company can take, it also defines the steps an individual can take when they find themselves in an insolvent position. In the UK under the Insolvency Act 1986 Individuals go bankrupt and companies go into liquidation. Therefore for this page to state it went into bankruptcy is wrong.

The compulsory liquidation of Gizmondo Europe Limited was declared in the High Courts in London on 2nd February 2006. This is a factual statement which can be sourced from the London Gazette, a publication that covers the insolvency sector in the UK, it can be sourced directly from the High Courts or alternatively from the joint Liquidators who were appointed to oversee the liquidation and they are Begbies Traynor and David Reubens.

Onlinefactcheck (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Regards

Would you please provide a link in another edit showing that there were more individuals directing the company than these two? Otherwise I'm afraid your proposed edit will be reverted. Kiko4564 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Open the link below and you will see all the company Directors of Gizmondo Europe Ltd.
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04620348/GIZMONDO-EUROPE-LIMITED/directors-shareholders#peopleOnlinefactcheck (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

edited text, which was removed..

Kiko,

I respect your efforts to limit the NRHP content solely to the location and the build infomation. I can move my content to a page dedicated to the ranch, which is not a NRHP. Tha will alow for input regardign the ranche and the Manges and Leser familes. I can then keep that open for editing by all of those who vacationed int he cabins.

I did not exect you to remove the content so abruptly, so I did not capture a copy of my entry. Can you send me what you removed?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.176.104 (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Vague message

You placed a templated message on my talk page informing me that I should place a templated message when I revert an edit. I revert lots of edits while patrolling new pages. Sometimes it takes a few minutes to review the editors edit history for other problems before leaving him a suitable message. When you place a notice or warning on someone's page, you really should use a form of the warning which includes reference to the article you are talking about. That way the person you are templating does not have to waste valuable time which could be used to improve the encyclopedia looking back at all his recent edits to try and figure out which one you are complaining about. It is also generally considered considered more appropriate to leave a short personal message to editors of long standing rather than templating them. Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Regards, Edison (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your advice there. Will at least give a link if not a personal message. :) Kiko4564 (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Also. when you post something unrelated to the previous thread, please create a new section, unless you are associating yourself with the editor who posted immediately before you. Edison (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

World Firefighters Games

Kiko, What is going on? You look like an experience user and surely you are familiar with WP:V. Rather than edit war please provide a reliable reference that the games were cancelled. I have no interest in the story but simple Google search shows that the Games are supposed to be held in LA in 2014 Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll promise not to revert you. I restored the wrong revision whilst reverting a blocked sockpuppeter; sorry about that. No I can't provide a source so I'll leave it be. :) Thanks for your understanding; hopefully I won't be done for this. Kiko4564 (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Disney Consumer products.

I'm not commiting any crimes FYI, plus many seem to be oblivious to the fact that Disney is not going to do anything with Indy anytime soon, and I never made no 3-revert rules. Plus the article I put in doesn't lie: http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-consumer-products-starwars-63516/ 50.171.11.116 (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ePSXe

Please can you tell me why you keep reverting my edits on ePSXe? I am not vandalizing the article! I basically just changed the dates on the release table to show the full names of the months. How is that vandalism? --93.115.84.195 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What, no I'm not! I've never made those edits on that IP address. Though I am using a VPN service, so it's probably a shared IP. Besides, does that really mean you should revert my edits on ePSXe? They're not vandalism. --93.115.84.195 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Hollyhedge park, Kiko4564.

Unfortunately Altamel has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

This page is of questionable notability. I'm not sure that significant independent coverage (i.e.not published by the Manchester government) exists for this topic.

To reply, leave a comment on Altamel's talk page. —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violation of your previous unblock conditions, avoiding SCRUTINY, and vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Per evidence (confirmed by checkuser) that this user has been using (Redacted) to vandalize and avoid scrutiny. This is not only against normal policy, but in direct violation of the very specific conditions to which he agreed when being unblocked last time: I will be OK with just using this account and no anon IPs or puppets (including for appealing any blocks on any accounts or public computer use). I will simply use https and always login when editing (including from public computers). I no longer intend to edit from a anon IP as this has been clarified as something I will be restricted to not being allowed to do. (from this edit). GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kiko4564 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I had the impulse to log out and make the vandalism edit because I wanted to test the boundaries whilst also quite wrongfully being stupid and naive enough to think I'd be off the hook. In that I wanted to be able to see if changing fudge to **** would be appropriate, without anyone finding out but I completely forgot about the first accidental edit whilst logged out which incriminated me. I will avoid any further impulses by ensuring that I actually take the rules seriously at all times if granted a second chance and assuming, especially considering my history, I'll be under greater scruntiny in the first place; which will include having no more opportunities to deal with being blocked again, rather than pushing every boundary, trying to game policies like this one or for that matter, the system in general to see what I can get away with. I don't think of Wikipedia as a game, instead I think of it as a serious encyclopedia. However, at the time I also saw it as having a portion of joke pages like the one I vandalised which are a bit freer with the rules. Also, when I have an impulse to change a word in an article to a profanity citing my chances under policies like be bold or wikipedia is not censored; I'll check the situation out in advanced in a more appropriate place. For instance; in this situation I did not vandalise main space, which is not relevant to the grounds I'm blocked on because I did agree to the condition of never editing whilst logged out; regardless of any intentions, even in good faith. I understand the block wasn't being used to punish me for the sockpuppetry; but was within the policy as preventing this being repeated and needed to be indefinite considering they had no idea as to how long would be long enough for another impulse to possibly happen. On this short leash unblock, I'll also agree to never use any profanities on site except on talk pages without explicit permission from an administrator. For clarification purposes, all usernames which I have known to edit wikipedia from apart from the current one are: WPBot, John Prescot and Kiko4564 (alt). Kiko4564 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm really not sure what is different here from the previous two times you have made this promise. An assertion that you would view this as 'short leash unblock' is meaningless; you were already on a short leash and had explicitly vowed not to repeat the behaviors which lead to your previous blocks. Unfortunately, I cannot review IRC conversations for any further mitigating information. Mr. Fluffernutter's proposition below is a good one in a general sense; taking the time to develop impulse control on other endeavors and other projects may provide a better case for an unblock. Kuru (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

This is your fourth sockpuppetry-related block. Out of curiosity, why are we supposed to believe that you have any intention to stop doing this, when you not only intentionally edited under an IP address, but proudly displayed your vandalistic edit to another user? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I did display my edit privately to another editor; but not "proudly" and I think I should be granted another chance because I will go further than the previous conditions of not avoiding scrutiny and also ensure I comply with further conditions of abstaining from profanity altogether, except on talk pages and hence never in mainspace or wikipedia namespace including joke pages. Kiko4564 (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Kiko, when I spoke to you about this yesterday on IRC I suggested taking substantial time off before requesting unblock, but now tonight I see that you've been asking around multiple channels hoping to find an admin who will let you speak to them in private to petition for immediate unblock. Please consider taking my advice and taking some time away from the project to develop yourself before you pursue an(other) unblock request. Asking the same thing over and over doesn't show maturity, it just indicates that you're having trouble understanding what behavior is and isn't appropriate. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
For reference; the above request was tlx'd but then mistakenly reopened when I restored a deleted comment. Kiko4564 (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Request

Can someone please post {{pp-semi-protected}} on the top of my user page? Thanks. Kiko4564 (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert on my behalf

{{helpme}} https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2013&oldid=572988730 Kiko4564 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Note

I agree the edits which immediately followed this revision were highly problematic, and I've rephrased them. Thanks for bringing this to our intention, and sorry for the misunderstanding. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You are forgiven there considering you yourself acted in good faith but what matters is that this mistake isn't repeated. :) Kiko4564 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kiko4564 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I had the impulse to log out and make the vandalism edit because I wanted to test the boundaries whilst also quite wrongfully being naive enough to think I would be off the hook, in that I wanted to be able to see if changing fudge to the f word would be appropriate; without anyone finding out but I completely forgot about the first accidental edit whilst logged out which gave the game away. I will avoid any further impulses by ensuring that I actually take the rules/ provisos seriously at all times if granted another chance and assuming, especially considering my history, I'll be under scrutiny; which will include having no more opportunities to deal with being blocked again, rather than pushing every boundary, trying to game policies or for that matter, the system in general to see what I can get away with which I understand will be nothing whatsoever. I don't think of Wikipedia as a game, instead I think of it as a serious encyclopedia as I always have. However, at the time I also saw it as having a portion of joke pages like the one I vandalised which are a bit freer with the rules. Also, when I have an impulse to change a word in an article to a profanity citing my chances under policies like be bold or Wikipedia is not censored; I'll check the situation out in advanced at a more appropriate article talk page and not try covering my tracks to avoid scrutiny if I have nothing to hide. For instance; in this situation I did not vandalise main space, although this is not relevant to the grounds I'm blocked on because I did agree to the condition of never editing whilst logged out; regardless of any intentions, even in good faith. I understand the block wasn't being used to punish me for the sockpuppetry; but was within the policy as preventing this being repeated and needed to be indefinite considering they had no idea as to how long would be long enough for another impulse to possibly happen as well as my history of dealing with blocks of a defined length e.g. social engineering. If unblocked, I'll also agree to never use any profanities on site in mainspace, on user talk pages or Wikipedia namespace including joke pages except on article talk pages without explicit permission from an administrator. I think I should be granted another chance because I will go further than the previous conditions of not avoiding scrutiny. Also, although I admittedly showed the edit to another editor over IRC; I was not proud whilst doing so and will be able to provide a log in private on request. For clarification purposes, this block is for sockpuppetery as confirmed by checkuser using IP address ((Redacted)) and making a vandalism edit, and all usernames and some IPs which I have known to edit Wikipedia from apart from the current one, of which only the IP addresses have been used to sockpuppet, are: (Redacted), (Redacted), WPBot, John Prescot and Kiko4564 (alt). I have done some proofreading on the English wikisource. Kiko4564 (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

How many "last chances" before it loses any meaning? It has already been reviewed with you how many times you have been blocked for sockpuppetry. It has already been reviewed with you how many times you violated your unblocking conditions. It has already been suggested you take some time before making another unblock request. Yet less then a month after your last unblock request you post a virtually identical one. Furthermore, you really don't have any justification for breaching your unblock conditions other than wanting to test them. I have zero confidence in your ability to follow any future advice or unblock conditions. I should also caution you at this time that multiple identical unblock requests will most likely lead to your talk page access being revoked. Singularity42 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

Agreed that my next unblock request will not be identical for a start. Now onto your question I'm only asking for one last chance here on the understanding I have a nil chance of an unblock next time. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on when it's appropriate to use BASC

{{Help me}} Could someone please clarify how I'd best ask for another unblock? Considering I've been cautioned not to do so via the talk page; should I use WP:UTRS or go straight to WP:BASC? Thanks. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing stopping you going straight to BASC if you want, however they will almost certainly decline, and tell you to wait 6 months before making another request. PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Kiko4564 (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Just adding a note to say that I have declined Kiko4564's appeal via UTRS (ticket #8874), and have advised him to contact BASC if he wishes to appeal again. Yunshui  23:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk page access removed

Kiko, I've removed your access to the talk page of this and your alternate (noted above) account. You have been obsessing on edits to your userspace lately and as a result you've been wasting the time of editors who have to address your requests here and on IRC. You are already aware of your unblock options from the extensive discussions on this page; I suggest that when you've waited out a substantial block period without editing Wikipedia, you contact BASC or UTRS. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock_request_by_Kiko4564.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. Thank you. --Chris (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The ANI thread has been archived to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#Unblock_request_by_User:Kiko4564 There was no consensus to unblock you at this time. Nick (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

New appeal

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kiko4564 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Having had approximately six months since the last appeal above I wish to demonstrate to the Wikipedia community that although I did indeed justify my block by throwing old conditions out of the window I am however fully capable of complying with these as well as new ones such as the abstinence from any use of profanity except where necessary for the quality of mainspace articles or to facilitate proper talk page discussion when using quotes. The hard evidence which you will understandably want to look at may be slightly stale but is still available at wikidata here. Sorry once again for what I did to disrupt the encyclopedia by evading scrutiny, I will move on from this by continuing to patrol vandalism and increase the quality of articles. What I did by changing a benignly humorous word to a profanity was very childish which I'm now finding to be a very regrettable way of conducting myself as part of the general way I conducted myself since December 2010 so having moved on I'd like to please have another chance which for the final time I won't be wasting again having gained more maturity. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As far as I'm concerned, this is much the same as your last unblock request, and the one before that. Given that you were given a second chance, and a third chance, I don't see a compelling reason to give you any further chances. PhilKnight (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

Appeal to communnity (please do not copy, review or comment without permission)

Is this an appeal? Or a draft of an appeal? Or just you shouting into the darkness? Unless you use the unblock template, no administrator who isn't already watching this page (i.e. those of us who have dealt with you before and wouldn't be reviewing it anyway) is going to know you're appealing your block and come by to evaluate this. But you don't seem to want anyone to review it anyway? I find myself entirely confused by what you're going for here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an appeal and I already requested someone post it to ANI via private email. However I've given him ample time to do so and they haven't replied nor done so therefore I'll use the unblock template as you can see above. I avoided the unblock template being a one admin ballgame as an admin will have no duty to put it up for discussion. Kiko4564 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
If you're talking about me, then sorry for not replying. PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Understood then. You have the obvious reason that you declined my prior request not to and that aside I emailed you asking you not to and considering the below allegations it is also understandable that you wouldn't want to. Thanks for your reply then! :) Kiko4564 (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=As a former vandal I believe I deserve an unblock on the grounds that I have shown I can remain in control of myself on wikidata although finding a checkuser and administrator to unblock me has proven impossible as well as the completely valid rejection of my block appeal I wish to appeal to you once again on the grounds that I'm willing to avoid profanity. My real mistake however was the use of an anonymous IP to not only edit whilst avoiding scrutiny but to also vandalise and my attempt at keeping my breach of the conditions of unblock a secret. I also apologise having grown up from my block evasion a while back making another vandal edit whilst logged out at a school. I'm appealing to you again because being six months since the last discussion on ANI I'd like another administrator to please consider placing this request on ANI for review by the wider community and will also be pointing out that it is a checkuser block for sockpuppetery so a non-CU will not decline nor accept my request. Kiko4564 (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Note to reviewing admin: user was most recently evading this block with A banned user returns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) with this edit, about an hour and a half before this request. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you please address your claim in WP:SPI then. In the meantime I've killed the request so you'll have plenty of time in order to do so. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There is, I believe, no prospect of an admin posting your request to any noticeboard here; certainly I, having gone through the whole thread, would not. You can e-mail the blocking admin, which I think is your only recourse. Incidentally you have not killed the request, just de-formatted it.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I've run a checkuser and confirmed the block evasion. In this context, I've revoked talk page access, as I don't think this appeal has any chance of success. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Stop hand
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 logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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.