User talk:DaliBama

A request

See my responses at my talkpage. This back & forth stuff is dizzying. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

You have been blocked from editing for disruptive editing, and very likely being a sock of User:Boneyarddog, per this diff. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not User:Boneyarddog. I am not and could you be bothered giving any evidence that I am? Please. Come on! Some standards here. Some basic levels. DaliBama (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

{{subst:While I agree you are likely not Boneyarddog, I'm pretty sure of who you ARE a sock of. I'm going to let this block stand until a SPI confirms it or denies it.}} SirFozzie (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2009 (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.

Just curious. For a bloke who's only joined Wikipedia mere moments ago, you seem to know quite a bit about its procedures. How is this? GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reviewing admin should note that DaliBama violated 1RR on Names of the Irish state right after clearing a warning about it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest that this editor is User:Boneyarddog is nonsense! While I agree this editor is a sock of who I'm not sure, User:Boneyarddog was accused of being a sock of either Dunc or Myself. Now nearly all agree that this is not supportable, so why would User:Boneyarddog have a pop at Dunc and Myself? Run a check user, lets nail this box shut. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in order to end all doubts, let's have Check-users. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: No, it ain't Boneyarddog. But, I suspect it's a sock of an indef-blocked editor. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boneyarddog is Unlikely to be a sock account, per checkuser - Alison ^❤ 04:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I have opened a section to request a SPI of this situation with a request for Checkuser here. SirFozzie (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already got to that one, Foz. Too slow :) - Alison ^❤ 04:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redking7 again? Grrr. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standards etc

I see even the matters I discussed on the discussion page of Names of the Irish state have been deleted. That sort of carry on is sinister. Regards. DaliBama (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redking7, I thought this sock of yours was blocked? GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Probably we're not interested in anything you have to say. We're not interested in any changes you want to make, we're not interested in any suggestions you have. You're indef blocked and unlikely to be unblocked any time soon if ever, you're not welcome to edit Wikipedia. Why not accept this and go away? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]