User talk:WWWUser

Blocked[edit]

That's enough. I've blocked you for two days. Repeatedly recreating these policy pages and edit warring is disruptive. Sarah 06:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok i can agree to leave the declined notice up just as long as another admin will still review my new request.--WWWUser 07:36, 13 February 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Bogus block, look at my contribs, since last warning all i have done is archive my talk pahe and make a note on a user's talk page, then create my user page, and create Wikipedia:AWB Hacked! which was a page about an anti-vandal too i am making. So it seems to me that there are no grounds for a block.

Decline reason:

You're kidding, aren't you. You were asked by at least three editors to stop reverting a redirect from a false guideline which you had created. Wait until the block times out, and come back with something constructive. -- Yuser31415 07:04, 13 February 2007 (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.

Unblock[edit]

i'd like an admin who wasn't involved in the edit confusion to review this.--WWWUser 07:13, 13 February 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Bogus block, look at my contribs, since last warning all i have done is archive my talk pahe and make a note on a user's talk page, then create my user page, and create Wikipedia:AWB Hacked! which was a page about an anti-vandal too i am making. So it seems to me that there are no grounds for a block. i wasn't even messing with those since archiving my talk. There was some mis-communication of redirects and stuff without my not knwoing what was going on it seemed to be vandalism to me so i reverted, evetually it got worked out then i arcived my talk and worked on other things then was blocked.

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, and especially concerning "AWB Hacked!" I would have blocked, as well. Recreating pages is disruptive, and this account was used in that disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:40, 13 February 2007 (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.

oh so you don't belive in freedom of speech either, AWB Hacked! is designed to allow people who have a life outside of WP (those without 500 mainspace edits yet) to use it, if they vandalize with it well if you would have asked i plan on a restricted list which only admins could access so if user1 misueses it, you block user1 from editing and add him to this protected list, then when is block is up he still can't use AWB hacked, it's just a reverse of awb were you don't have unreal requirements to even use it but rather let any registered user use it then if they misuse it stop that account from using it.--WWWUser 07:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated recreation of deleted pages is grounds for a block. John Reaves (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See User talk:WWWUser/archive1 for issued warnings. John Reaves (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

check the edits, i wasn't even messing with those since archiving my talk. There was some mis-communication of redirects and stuff without my not knwoing what was going on it seemed to be vandalism to me so i reverted, evetually it got worked out then i arcived my talk and worked on other things then was blocked. WWWUser 07:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I declined a previous unblock request. Yuser31415 07:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But youre not an admin, Yuser, and you did nothing to disabuse this editor of that notion after he appealed your "administrative action". Jeffpw 08:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this another review - I see no reason to unblock you. AWB Hacked! is not appropriate at all for use on Wikipedia (if it even exists), and the re-creation of deleted pages is, as noted above, grounds for a block. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]