User talk:Lagos, Ricardo: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:58, 27 November 2006

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).

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

Request reason:

I was never notified as of the reasons for the block. I clearly stated by position as to why Nae'blis shouldn't be admin. I believe it to be unacceptable for an admin not to know IPA and I have a right to state my opinion. If this is not allowed, I'd like to plead mercy and the "assume good faith" policy. Thanks.

Decline reason:

It is highly unlikely that a new user would start !voting on RfA's with no contribs, therefore your account was suspected as a vote manipulating sockpuppet and therefore blocked. -- Tawker 23:54, 27 November 2006 (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.

Sockpuppet of whom? I swear I am not a sockpuppet. I voted on RfA because it seemed interesting. i didnt know one could not vote without previous contribs. My apologies. Still, ASG applies and I dont think those who are ignorant of the IPA should be admin. Answer promptly, please Lagos, Ricardo 23:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:57, 27 November 2006 edit Lagos, Ricardo (talk \| contribs) 11 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:58, 27 November 2006 edit undo Lagos, Ricardo (talk \| contribs) 11 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{unblock reviewed\|1=I was never notified as of the reasons for the block. I clearly stated by position as to why Nae'blis shouldn't be admin. I believe it to be unacceptable for an admin not to know IPA and I have a right to state my opinion. If this is not allowed, I'd like to plead mercy and the "assume good faith" policy. Thanks. \|decline=It is highly unlikely that a new user would start !voting on RfA's with no contribs, therefore your account was suspected as a vote manipulating sockpuppet and therefore blocked. -- [[User:Tawker\|Tawker]] 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)}}		{{unblock reviewed\|1=I was never notified as of the reasons for the block. I clearly stated by position as to why Nae'blis shouldn't be admin. I believe it to be unacceptable for an admin not to know IPA and I have a right to state my opinion. If this is not allowed, I'd like to plead mercy and the "assume good faith" policy. Thanks. \|decline=It is highly unlikely that a new user would start !voting on RfA's with no contribs, therefore your account was suspected as a vote manipulating sockpuppet and therefore blocked. -- [[User:Tawker\|Tawker]] 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)}}

	: Sockpuppet of whom? I swear I am not a sockpuppet. I voted on RfA because it seemed interesting. i didnt know one could not vote without previous contribs. My apologies. Still, ASG applies and I dont think those who are ignorant of the IPA should be admin. [[User:Lagos, Ricardo\|Lagos, Ricardo]] 23:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)		: Sockpuppet of whom? I swear I am not a sockpuppet. I voted on RfA because it seemed interesting. i didnt know one could not vote without previous contribs. My apologies. Still, ASG applies and I dont think those who are ignorant of the IPA should be admin. Answer promptly, please [[User:Lagos, Ricardo\|Lagos, Ricardo]] 23:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)