User talk:Wikitiful

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have not been of a sock puppet or vandal of Christina McHale. I only created this account since I had seen the wikipedia article before it was deleted and wanted it to be put under deletion review when I saw that it no longer exists. If you feel that I am a sock puppet you are completely wrong and I have not even made any edits to wikipedia, only put an article for deletion review. I know Christina McHale and I feel that the article does not have any valid reason to be deleted since it is not false information, is not one-sided, or does not violate any privacy because this information about her is already on the internet. Please unblock me because you are wrong and I have not even done anything wrong to wikipedia and you are saying that I am a sock puppet or a vandal. How can you even make a presumption that I am a sock puppet or a vandal when there is no established history, or anything but putting something under deletion review which is perfectly complying with the rules of wikipedia. Just because this is a shared computer, all other users are presumed to do something when nothing has even been done. No vandalism was even done either by deletion review. If any wikipedian feels an article should not be deleted, it can be put under deletion review; it is fine and I am presumed a vandal and blocked indefinitely for only that? This is totally unfair and I must be unblocked. I have not violated ANY rules of wikipedia!

Decline reason:

So... your first edit just happens to be a DRV request of an apparently sock-attracting article? Sure. — Sandstein 23:05, 31 March 2007 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

UNFAIR! I did nothing wrong on wikipedia, I am declined by a request to be unblocked when nothing wrong has been done, and you are just suspecting me of doing something when I have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I am completely innocent until proven guilty and I have not been guilty of vandalism which is PROVEN by me not doing anything to wikipedia. It is perfectly fine to put an article under deletion review and just because it is my first edit you cannot suspect me to be a sock-puppet of some sort or a vandal. I created an account recently and I wanted an article under deletion review which is perfectly fine under wikipedia. I want the policy to have justice with it. I am INNOCENT and have not vandalized anything! If I have done nothing wrong, I want be unblocked. Unblock me because this is unfair and I am NOT a sock-puppet. If you think I am, where is your SOLID PROOF of guilt. You are making too many presumptions and an innocent person should not be blocked just out of suspicion. UNBLOCK ME!

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=UNFAIR! I did nothing wrong on wikipedia, I am declined by a request to be unblocked when nothing wrong has been done, and you are just suspecting me of doing something when I have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I am completely innocent until proven guilty and I have not been guilty of vandalism which is PROVEN by me not doing anything to wikipedia. It is perfectly fine to put an article under deletion review and just because it is my first edit you cannot suspect me to be a sock-puppet of some sort or a vandal. I created an account recently and I wanted an article under deletion review which is perfectly fine under wikipedia. I want the policy to have justice with it. I am INNOCENT and have not vandalized anything! If I have done nothing wrong, I want be unblocked. Unblock me because this is unfair and I am NOT a sock-puppet. If you think I am, where is your SOLID PROOF of guilt. You are making too many presumptions and an innocent person should not be blocked just out of suspicion. UNBLOCK ME! |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=UNFAIR! I did nothing wrong on wikipedia, I am declined by a request to be unblocked when nothing wrong has been done, and you are just suspecting me of doing something when I have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I am completely innocent until proven guilty and I have not been guilty of vandalism which is PROVEN by me not doing anything to wikipedia. It is perfectly fine to put an article under deletion review and just because it is my first edit you cannot suspect me to be a sock-puppet of some sort or a vandal. I created an account recently and I wanted an article under deletion review which is perfectly fine under wikipedia. I want the policy to have justice with it. I am INNOCENT and have not vandalized anything! If I have done nothing wrong, I want be unblocked. Unblock me because this is unfair and I am NOT a sock-puppet. If you think I am, where is your SOLID PROOF of guilt. You are making too many presumptions and an innocent person should not be blocked just out of suspicion. UNBLOCK ME! |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=UNFAIR! I did nothing wrong on wikipedia, I am declined by a request to be unblocked when nothing wrong has been done, and you are just suspecting me of doing something when I have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I am completely innocent until proven guilty and I have not been guilty of vandalism which is PROVEN by me not doing anything to wikipedia. It is perfectly fine to put an article under deletion review and just because it is my first edit you cannot suspect me to be a sock-puppet of some sort or a vandal. I created an account recently and I wanted an article under deletion review which is perfectly fine under wikipedia. I want the policy to have justice with it. I am INNOCENT and have not vandalized anything! If I have done nothing wrong, I want be unblocked. Unblock me because this is unfair and I am NOT a sock-puppet. If you think I am, where is your SOLID PROOF of guilt. You are making too many presumptions and an innocent person should not be blocked just out of suspicion. UNBLOCK ME! |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}