User talk:Globetownexists

February 2020

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) 18:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Belbury

You all accountable including you C.Fred by aiding Lord Belbury actions Globetownexists (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that the IP is connected. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are most very welcome C.Fred, as for Lord Belbury I will be contacting local media about his actions as I feel it is now my civic duty to tell the community the story. He is already informed and was warned of this and gave chances to resolve. Globetownexists (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider looking directly into this User:Jimbo Wales as this now a last resort and also is a serous matter. I feel the admins such as C.Fred have failed to be fair or look into User:Lord Belbury “obsession” in this case. This is a possible case of prolonged discrimination by User:Lord Belbury. His account should really be ban under Wikipedia policy but I do not get to decide that. Trying to ease an entire history of a community and by extension it people is wrong. I hope the user in question has not tried to do this crosssite or in other places. This should and has to be investigated. All is wanted is a separate page just for Globe Town only. Please consider overruling this highly grossly unjust decision to delete the Globe Town page and allow it to be restored. Globetownexists (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

If User:Lord Belbury is allowed to edit while clearly breaking Wikipedia policy with full support of several admins then surely I should be allowed to? Where the fairness in this? Surely he should at the very least be investigated?

Decline reason:

WP:GAB explains how to craft an acceptable unblock. This isn't. Yamla (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I just feel I am being treated unfairly and pick on by one user stated above. It it bad enough I had to raise this with Jimbo Wales over the said user actions as I feel the admins do not wish to take note on both the bullying and the other subject. I am a good user who while as made errors, have learn from this and should be ban but would if unblocked followed all polices including copyrights.

Decline reason:

No. Simply put you have evaded your block multiple times and cast aspersions at editors in good standing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2020 (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.

As you are not eligible for unblock consideration here, I have revoked your talk page access. Note that you have been so abusive, you are now considered banned by the community. WP:CBAN explains this. You can make your request to the community to lift your ban by following WP:UNBAN. Note that your block evasion and sockpuppetry here will substantially count against you. I strongly advise you not make a request at the current time, as it's all but guaranteed to be rejected. Your best hope, though it's slim given your history of abuse, is to wait six months and then apply under the terms of WP:SO. --Yamla (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]