User talk:Renamed user 9

you

Trolling IP comment removed Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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).

Renamed user 9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please read here is some evidence that I have not been underhand... (Admins, check history to read the whole thing)

Decline reason:

Regardless of whether you think you were right or not, abusing multiple accounts in the manner you did is against policy and grounds for a block. A checkuser confirmed that you were doing this in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gregs the baker. This means that your IP addresses conclusively matched those of the other accounts. Your long reasoning addressed no reasons why you would stop this behavior, only justifying your reasoning for doing so, which we are not interested in when considering your unblock. Unless you can demonstrate that you know why what you did was against policy, and that you will not do it again, you are unlikely to be unblocked. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:41, 29 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.

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).

Renamed user 9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Long reasoning removed to condense page by Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

Decline reason:

The request is too long. Be more concise. — Sandstein (talk) 06:16, 31 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.

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).

Renamed user 9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Even longer reasoning removed, again, see history, by Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

Decline reason:

The problem is that you were deliberately abusing these other accounts in order to make a WP:POINT. It's really not necessary to demonstrate to disruptive people how they're being disruptive by being disruptive yourself; this just makes matters worse. You had a previous block for edit warring, and your comments don't seem to indicate that you've learned from that block. Now, if you would like to request another unblock after this one, PLEASE make it SHORT, as you've already been told. If your reasoning is too long, as all three of your requests so far have been, we may very well skip reading it and just decline it straight off, as Sandstein did above. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:21, 31 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.

Before I begin my next unblock User:Hersfold The reason I used protest socks (that I was transparent about, thus they were not underhand) was because in my reality of inexperience I didn't know how to appeal and I wanted my say on an issue I had been editing over the past months.

You get no instructions on how to appeal with an indefinate banning. I wanted my say, I felt the punishment was wrong and when I got blocked for the crispyducks678 account I read WP:Sock and found I should be blocked... Immediately after my blocking the article was put up for deletion, an egg timer with a choice of wires factor... I was not being underhand, I have never been underhand.

Where I was coming from here: I wanted to show you a human case to a human who would understand genuine human consequences. I wanted to show I'm actually a good faith user. We have got our wires crossed somewhere.

You said, "It's really not necessary to demonstrate to disruptive people how they're being disruptive by being disruptive yourself; this just makes matters worse." Well I can see that after the experience in hindsight alongside you showing me.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Renamed user 9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

User:HersfoldCould you please unblock me because before the crispyducks678 account I have no history of sockabuse or any abuse, bar one were I slipped up in an edit war, and I made my first genuine mistakes which grew into other mistake because I did not know how to appeal. Recently I have not used a sock and I wont again. I have learned disruption brings disruption. I am a good faith wikiuser, who has added to the wiki project and respects the input of others. I am a user who has now informed himself of WP:Sock and I'm against sock abuse. It wont happen again.

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=[[User:Hersfold]]Could you please unblock me because before the crispyducks678 account I have no history of sockabuse or any abuse, bar one were I slipped up in an edit war, and I made my first genuine mistakes which grew into other mistake because I did not know how to appeal. Recently I have not used a sock and I wont again. I have learned disruption brings disruption. I am a good faith wikiuser, who has added to the wiki project and respects the input of others. I am a user who has now informed himself of [[WP:Sock]] and I'm against sock abuse. It wont happen again. |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=[[User:Hersfold]]Could you please unblock me because before the crispyducks678 account I have no history of sockabuse or any abuse, bar one were I slipped up in an edit war, and I made my first genuine mistakes which grew into other mistake because I did not know how to appeal. Recently I have not used a sock and I wont again. I have learned disruption brings disruption. I am a good faith wikiuser, who has added to the wiki project and respects the input of others. I am a user who has now informed himself of [[WP:Sock]] and I'm against sock abuse. It wont happen again. |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=[[User:Hersfold]]Could you please unblock me because before the crispyducks678 account I have no history of sockabuse or any abuse, bar one were I slipped up in an edit war, and I made my first genuine mistakes which grew into other mistake because I did not know how to appeal. Recently I have not used a sock and I wont again. I have learned disruption brings disruption. I am a good faith wikiuser, who has added to the wiki project and respects the input of others. I am a user who has now informed himself of [[WP:Sock]] and I'm against sock abuse. It wont happen again. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}