User talk:Bulawik

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).

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

Request reason:

Cowman stated that I'm a troll/sock without justification, and blocked my account indefinitely, apparently for pointing out a policy violation by FCYTravis; This is my only Wikipedia account, although it is a recent one; can Admins really do this? Unbelievable

Decline reason:

A brand new account whose first and only edits are to the Administrator's noticeboard, quoting Wikipedia policy? Per WP:DUCK, there will be no unblock here. — ELIMINATORJR 18:23, 10 November 2007 (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 don't get it. I happen to be a lawyer, which is why I looked at Wikipedia's policy when I saw FCYTravis doing things that smelled bad. Also, although I've edited Wikipedia in the past, this is the first time I actually got into anything resembling a conflict, so I started an account so my contributions are labeled better. Is this really the way you treat Wikipedia users? Little people on power trips.