User talk:97daviee

If you are into politics you are welcome.(97daviee (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/97daviee for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. – Richard BB 13:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/97daviee. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —DoRD (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you unblock me.[edit]

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).

97daviee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am very sorry for using two accounts on a Talk Page, I did not know there were any restrictions against using two accounts. I will promise to never use two accounts on a Talk Page again.

Decline reason:

There is no point in having two unblock requests open at once, especially if they say effectively the same thing. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2012 (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.

I am willing to consider unblocking you, and your honesty in your unblock request counts in your favour. However, I am not totally happy with your statement. Some people set up more than one account for perfectly honest reasons. However, you set up a second account for the sole purpose of adding an apparent second voice in a disagreement in which you were involved. It is very difficult to see that as anything other than deliberate dishonesty, and whether or not you knew anything about "any restrictions against using two accounts", it is difficult to imagine that you did not know you were being dishonest. I would prefer to see a statement from you about that before deciding whether to unblock you. There is nothing to stop another administrator from unblocking you, but I think it is likely that most admins would have similar doubts to mine. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2012 (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).

97daviee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not read the terms and conditions of the Talk Page, I do apologise for not reading it, as soon as my block expires or I'm unblocked I will read the terms and conditions in full detail, so I won't be breaching the terms and conditions in the future

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, you have not only failed to make any attempt to address the point I raised above, but you have posted another unblock request which confirms the same attitude as before. If, as seems to be the case, your attitude is that it's all right to do something which is blatantly dishonest, as long as it is not actually against any rule, then you will not fit into Wikipedia's way of operating. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2012 (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.

Blocked[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppetry. Using or creating new accounts to avoid violating the three revert rule, to edit war, or avoid a block or ban are considered violations of policies regarding sockpuppets. If you wish to contest a block, do not create new accounts to do so, please e-mail the blocking administrator instead. (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]