User talk:The Pimp Hand

Spit atcha boy

re Climate Cabal

Unfortunately I think that my presence could do nothing but inflame them. Drolz ⁰⁹ 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:54, 17 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).

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

Request reason:

WTF! I log in to see this. I am new here and I get blocked for what reason? I did nothing against the rules. If I have please point them out to me (if you can). Talk about having NO GOOD FAITH. Then you list I am an "apparent sock puppet" what does that say about you or wikipedia? Please explain how I have been disruptive at all. I feel this is totally unjustified. --The PimpHand $ 01:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given your username, plus what was on your userpage, on second thought I don't feel comfortable unblocking you. Blueboy 96 03:02, 18 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I feel like I'm in the movie Minority Report and being punished for precrime. Two admin now have failed to show where I have broken any rules. I seem to be being blocked for NO REASON I thought wikipedia had some sort of code of ethics or set or rules NOT admin "feelings" and "presumptions". Please state the reasons for my block. Who cares what my user name is, does it matter what I put on my userpage as long as it is not uncivil or an attack.--The PimpHand $ 04:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The reason this account is blocked is because it is patently obvious that you are not new to Wikipedia, but are an experienced user with other accounts. This account is obviously being used in violation of WP:SOCK. We don't really care how you feel about any issues, just that you restrict yourself to using one account and you don't violate our policies. Jayron32 06:46, 18 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a "sock" this is my only account. However I did read this morning WP:NOASSUMESOCK and WP:NEWBIES maybe some of you advanced editors could do the same instead of assuming BAD FAITH. This is 2009/2010 and yes I have some computer skills, but can you show me where my edits make me a "patently obvious sock"? No wonder so many people leave this website and never come back just look at how I was welcomed! Hey if you guys are so out to get me check my IP with your Harry Potter magic wand if you want. Don't automatically cry "sockpuppet!" when a brand-new account simply, and solely, shows proficiency.--The PimpHand $ 15:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser evidence shows you are employing methods to evade scrutiny; this in itself is sufficient to sustain the block, as there are no reasons to use such methods that are to the benefit of Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:37, 18 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please disclose Checkuser evidence. I do not believe there was an investigation, but rather an attempt to stonewall my attempt to be a member here. Whatever my firewall or internet security is should have no baring on my anonymity here. Especially if I am causing no problems or breaking NO rules.--The PimpHand $ 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Often WP:DUCK is enough. Behavioral evidence strongly suggests that you are a sock, possibly someone's "bad hand" account. CheckUser is not magic pixie dust that would prove your innocence anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 18 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.

Not to mention that jpgordon, a checkuser, has confirmed that there are shenanigans going on here. That's enough, I'm reblocking with talk page access disabled. 4 unblock requests is enough. If you wish to be unblocked, go to WP:BASC and follow the instructions there to request a review of your block by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee of ArbCom. --Jayron32 21:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]