User talk:Tredgert

Please post any comments below:Tredgert (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

This User was blocked as a sock puppet of Lawline. However, Lawline should have never been blocked in the first place and Lawline which was blocked in 2011 should be unblocked. The real story about User:Lawline is that an Administrator was making edits to an article written by Lawline. The Administrator had no knowledge of the subject area but engaged in cyber bullying against Lawline to get her way. Lawline indicated that he disagreed with some of her edits. Lawline also advised the Administrator that some of her edits could be viewed as libelous under New York law. However, Lawline NEVER threatened to sue and always respected the rights of Wikipedia and the Administrator. The Administrator then turned things around and claimed that Lawline threatened to sue Wikipedia which was not the case. The Administrator did this as a ploy to block and ban Lawline so she could could get Lawline out of the way and edit the Article the way she wanted to. Following the banning of Lawline, every User that in any way was associated with or supportive of Lawline was blocked and banned as a "sock puppet" of Lawline. Included in the "sock puppet" list was User:LuckyDan89 who was a college student who had been a Wikipedia user for over 5 years, and who was banned for making one small edit on a Lawline article. This User has never abused any accounts, has never vandalized any articles, and intends to continue as a productive member of the Wikipedia Community.

Decline reason:

It's unclear from your request whether you are claiming to be a sockpuppet of Lawline and arguing for an unblock of your old account (in which case you should make your case on that account's talkpage) or whether you are claiming to be unfairly accused (in which case you should make a case based on that claim, rather than arguing that an entirely different user was unfairly blocked). You should also be aware that unblock requests which are predicated on the behaviour of other users are routinely refused. Since an identical rationale has recently been used by User:Tulipart (a confirmed Lawline sock), it's pretty clear that sockpuppetry is still ongoing. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:23, 13 January 2014 (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.