User talk:Bob sos

October 2017[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why am I blocked? I didn't do anything to violate Wikipedia's rules. I simply made a few edits. Nothing at all that would violate Wikipedia's rules. No Sock puppetry. What did I violate?Bob sos (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Just Chilling (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2017 (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.

Can you please clarify why I am being blocked?Bob sos (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC) I haven't done anything that's disruptive. I have merely contributed some edits & was working on the talk page for discussing the Varicocele page edits.[reply]

You posted a message signed by your original account. You edited the same areas as your original account. That make it look clearly enough like you are Cathry. I'm not sure how you'll make a case that you aren't, but I'll leave it for another admin to review your unblock. That said, stick to either your original account or this one; if you continue to edit without logging in, your IP will be blocked as well. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This kinda made the case. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred (talk) how does that make any case? I reported him for edit warring... which is what he was doing... no idea what kind of case you're saying that makes. 199.119.233.204 (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred (talk) so I can't talk on someone's page? please calirify the wikipedia rules for me... I don't get it... 199.119.233.204 (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

how am I a sock puppet of Cathry? Who is that? Who reported this nonsense? And why can they report bullshit and get away with it? It's retarded and is pissing me off... and wikipedia is difficult enough to understand how to use... now you blocked me for no damn reason... Bob sos (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Bob sos (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Bob sos (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Just Chilling (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

You guys are a little dumb. I have no association with "CATHRY"... I editted the same spot as her occurding to you... I'm pretty sure i edited the same spot because I agreed with it... absolutely no idea why that would get me banned... Bob sos (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Bob sos (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC) wikipedia is pretty fucking retarded... my first edit and I get banned... Nice.[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Just Chilling (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2017 (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.

If not Cathry, then Joltzipper. It's pretty clear this isn't your first rodeo. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

right... I am Joltzipper... but, I don't understand why I can't edit a fucking wikipedia page... I didn't make any wrong edits. You're basically telling me that Jytdog or whatever has total control over the varicocele wikipedia page... it's pretty fucking retarded. pretty retarded that my joltzipper account was banned in the first place as well. I didn't even know you could appeal a ban before. Your talk pages are confusing as hell. And long-term users can easily abuse the system. I didn't do any wrong thing. I went to that idiot's talk page... And yes, he was engaged in an edit war. Go ahead and keep me banned if you think it's right, I don't give a shit Bob sos (talk) Bob sos (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC) 02:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)~ ~ Bob sos (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Just Chilling (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

(talk) what the hell... ???? Bob sos (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have admitted socking so all your appeals are declined. Since you have decided to appeal-bomb us with abusive appeals I am withdrawing your talk page access. Just Chilling (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2017 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Just Chilling (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]