User talk:Gooddays

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Panelgets (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

This is not a sock. Please unblock. Gooddays (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If that were a valid reason for unblock, we might as well not have a sockpuppetry policy. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not a sockpuppet and I've been blocked fro a wrong reason. How is that not a valid reason to unblock? Gooddays (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Explain, then, the following:

Why you've been editing from the same computer as User:Arisedrink
Why you're using a proxy service to edit
Why your pattern of editing matches that of a banned user from over three years ago if you have nothing to do with them

When you are able to provide reasonable explanations to these questions that match the data we have available to us, rather than simply contradicting any claim that you're related, then we may be willing to consider this. However, further flat denials will result in the loss of your ability to edit this page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:27, 9 December 2011 (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.

Reviewing admins may be interested to review not only the interesting contributions of this account, back from the blue after 3½ years to make shall we say two interesting edits to semi-protected pages, but also the recent histories of both articles recently edited, the history of Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists and related articles, as well as the open proxies involved, 210.87.254.115 (talk · contribs) (probably itself an open proxy) and Arisedrink (talk · contribs). Hello Gooddays, any narrative for your recent edits? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your issues are, but please stop harassing me and accusing me of sockpuppetry. You've caused me a lot of trouble in these past few days. Gooddays (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evading the question is not an answer. I find the evidence presented above to be legitimate and a response is recommended if you desire to have your unblock request taken under serious consideration. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been blocked on false accusation of being a sockpuppet, I'm not. I will contest this for as long as I'm allowed to. That is all. Gooddays (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know who Arisedrink and banned users on proxies are. Zzuuzz accusing me of being them does not make it true. The rest of the question doesn't even make logical sense, so I can't answer it. I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone, and that's the truth. Gooddays (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined as you have continued to fail to address the substance of the issue. Since you've indicated that you intend to continue posting unblock requests that will not be accepted, access to this page will be revoked. You may make further appeals to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee if desired, but I would strongly advise you address the issues posed above if you choose to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:42, 10 December 2011 (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.