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.

Hersfold Here is your smaller unblock appeal like you requested

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:

Here is my appeal in brief like what was requested. I am a good wiki user bar one mistake my history proves it, I strongly regret my mistakes that began by demonstrating, going against WP:Point. I respect the input of others who are also responsible and do not sock. I'm 'strongly' against any type of socking. I once made a human mistake, in openly demonstrating and trying to teach by irony I fought fire with fire, and hence became disruptive at a disruptive sock doing no one any favors; I've learned from this mistake and informed myself more on aspects of wiki e.g. WP:Point I can now see this demonstartion that also grew out of control over the AFD deletion egg timer was abuse. I have a lot to offer the wiki project. And I believe I should have the human freedom to edit this wiki project unrestricted to add to the project like every other person who assumes good faith like I do.

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= Here is my appeal in brief like what was requested. I am a good wiki user bar one mistake my history proves it, I strongly regret my mistakes that began by demonstrating, going against WP:Point. I respect the input of others who are also responsible and do not sock. I'm 'strongly' against any type of socking. I once made a human mistake, in openly demonstrating and trying to teach by irony I fought fire with fire, and hence became disruptive at a disruptive sock doing no one any favors; I've learned from this mistake and informed myself more on aspects of wiki e.g. WP:Point I can now see this demonstartion that also grew out of control over the AFD deletion egg timer was abuse. I have a lot to offer the wiki project. And I believe I should have the human freedom to edit this wiki project unrestricted to add to the project like every other person who assumes good faith like I do. |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= Here is my appeal in brief like what was requested. I am a good wiki user bar one mistake my history proves it, I strongly regret my mistakes that began by demonstrating, going against WP:Point. I respect the input of others who are also responsible and do not sock. I'm 'strongly' against any type of socking. I once made a human mistake, in openly demonstrating and trying to teach by irony I fought fire with fire, and hence became disruptive at a disruptive sock doing no one any favors; I've learned from this mistake and informed myself more on aspects of wiki e.g. WP:Point I can now see this demonstartion that also grew out of control over the AFD deletion egg timer was abuse. I have a lot to offer the wiki project. And I believe I should have the human freedom to edit this wiki project unrestricted to add to the project like every other person who assumes good faith like I do. |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= Here is my appeal in brief like what was requested. I am a good wiki user bar one mistake my history proves it, I strongly regret my mistakes that began by demonstrating, going against WP:Point. I respect the input of others who are also responsible and do not sock. I'm 'strongly' against any type of socking. I once made a human mistake, in openly demonstrating and trying to teach by irony I fought fire with fire, and hence became disruptive at a disruptive sock doing no one any favors; I've learned from this mistake and informed myself more on aspects of wiki e.g. WP:Point I can now see this demonstartion that also grew out of control over the AFD deletion egg timer was abuse. I have a lot to offer the wiki project. And I believe I should have the human freedom to edit this wiki project unrestricted to add to the project like every other person who assumes good faith like I do. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Some IP has been screwing with this talk page, removing or answering the unblock template. I've blocked him. --Golbez (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: At this point I recuse myself from further reviews of your block, having dealt with two already. You'll need to wait for another admin to deal with it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)