User talk:Lockdownlady

Jenison William Gordon[edit]

Hello. I notice that you've updated High Sheriff of Lincolnshire in 1783 to state that he came from Branston. I'm not entirely sure that this is correct. I've had a look at your source and it does indedd say that, but I've been interested in the history of Branston for years and have never come across him. Everywhere else says he lived at Haverholme Priory - do you mind if we change it back? Chris (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 30 April 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

It is disappointing to see that Ponyo has seen fit to revert all my corrections. It seems that political correctness is now more important than truth and accuracy in Wikipedia. It's bad enough that I was originally banned for a trivial offence after contributing some 10,000 hours of my time to what I once thought was a worthwhile cause. But, as in America, over zealous policing is damaging the loyalty of the population.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2021 (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 new sockpuppet means you are now banned by the community, as per WP:3X. --Yamla (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are all arbitrators robots? Lockdownlady (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Accordong to Ponyo Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. Where is the evidence for that?? How can a user defend himself against such arbitrary accusations by tin god administators?? In my own view I have never knowingly contributed any false, malicious or abusive content to any article in some 100,000 contributions

Decline reason:

Abusive unblock requests are not considered. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2021 (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.

Yet another robotic response - are they all zombies??? I am the one being libelled and they ,are worried about "abuse", Lockdownlady (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]