User talk:Msa1701

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msa1701 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts disruptively. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ~ mazca ^talk 09:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Msa1701 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As per my request i will agree to make NO edits for the next several months to prove that i am being serious about my request to be unblocked by Wiki administrators

Decline reason:

That's not how this usually works. If you're not going to edit there is no point in unblocking you anyway. Seeing as your last incidence of sockpuppetry was fairly recent, I think you should consider the standard offer for blocked users. If you can refrain from socking for several months, that would be a compelling reason to unblock you. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2010 (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.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Msa1701 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As stated i will only use one account from now on - however since i am currently blocked that wont be a problem! I have read the standard offer and agree that it is the best thing for me to do in this situation

Decline reason:

Good to hear. We'll see you in a few months. Best of luck.TNXMan 11:56, 28 July 2010 (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.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCKING REQUEST.

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).

Msa1701 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In an appeal to the Wikipedia administrators: I have not edited for three months now and wish for the adminstrators to review my case. I would only be registered as: msa1701 and no other accounts will be used. I ask please for a fair hearing and if my account is reactivated, i do not have a problem with it being monitored by other administrators making sure that i am folling the Wikipedia guidelines and rules. Thank you msa1701 (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I might consider your request favourably if you had only made a small amount of abuse. However, considering the substantial amount of sockpuppetry you practiced, I think the standard offer with its six month waiting period is reasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2010 (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.

Thank you for you considering my request i will wait the remainding time - Does my account automatically reopen after six months or do i make another request?

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Unblock request

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).

Msa1701 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Have i been blocked for 6 months?

Decline reason:

Your block currently will not expire. You were indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and based on the recent activity, I do not see any reason to unblock at this time. Nakon 22:56, 3 January 2011 (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.

Hello, Will my account automatically unlock this month or does it have to be done by an administrator?

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair blocking decision made by Wiki Administrator on 3.1.2011?

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).

Msa1701 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Will another administrator please review Nakons harsh decision that go the opposite to the other administrators on this page - thank you

Decline reason:

Your block is indefinite. Please follow the link if that word's meaning is not clear to you. Other admins' comments that it might be overturned does not bind us to fully reviewing. In your desperation you have failed to understand this, and that is a good reason for me not to unblock at this time. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2011 (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.

It is not desperation and there is no need to be rude by adding the link to the indefinate is highly childish and just goes to show that with some administrators that abosolute power corrupts absolutly.

msa1701 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked (via the unblock request) have I served my six months suspension or does my account automatically unlock after that time or does an administrator have to do it?

Administrator: Nakon has decided that my suspension is permanent which contradicts the TWO other administrators (JamesBWatson and TNXMan) gave different and more positive responses above his decision. They both agreed that a six month blocking was in order and that it could be reviewed after that time.

Please can someone shed some light on this persons decision as it is not the response that i was hoping for and i have nearly served my time.

msa1701 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]