User talk:Emma368

I HAVE BEEN A VICTIM OF MAJOR BULLYING AND HARASSMENT FROM CERTAIN EDITORS INCLUDING THEIR ADMINISTRATOR FRIENDS. THESE CASES ARE BEING INVESTIGATED AND ANY FURTHER ABUSE IS NOT RECOMMENDED.

Thou shalt not post any comments here which could be construed as bullying or victimisation on these pages. Any such comments will be removed with immediate effect. Thank you.

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).

Emma368 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am appealing this sham block for the following reasons:
1. As you can see above, I have been the victim of major bullying and victimisation on this site most notably from DrFrench, NawlinWiki, DanielCase, Aktsu, Looneyman and their associates.
2. They have gone further and accused me of sockpuppetry with some guy called Dave.
3. The neutrality of the Top Gear article has been compromised by their reluctance to allow the inclusion of Top Gear Dog and Sabine Schmitz.
4. The administrators above have abused their position.

Decline reason:

1. The above is a message from you - it contains no proof that you have been 'bullied' or 'harrassed'. Regardless, if you have, it does not excuse your behaviour.
2. If you're not a sockpuppet, then you've nothing to worry about. Let the case run and find you innocent. However, again, this does not excuse your behaviour.
3. This has been discussed on the article's talk page, and consensus' have been formed, but again, this does not excuse your behaviour.
4. No they haven't.
Block endorsed
_TalkIslander 19:12, 8 July 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.

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).

Emma368 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I refuse to accept the jurisdiction of Islander on this matter as he/she has already been involved in this case in the past, thus making the judgement potentially (and almost certainly) biased. This is exactly the point I have been making all along.

Decline reason:

I have reviewed the circumstances surrounding the current block, which is a 2 week block for falsifying an administrative action with regard to an open sockpuppetry case (as per this diff). Once the false close was noted, here, you appear to have removed the comment three times (here, here, and here). I stand mute on the merits of the sockpuppet allegation, as they do not have anything to do with you actions in this matter. Even if innocent of sockpuppetry, your edits at the SSP case are disruptive enough to warrant the block, and your continued comments following the block do not indicate that you are clear on the policies you have violated. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:53, 8 July 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.