User talk:Whovian99
Unblock request
[edit]
Whovian99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My account has been blocked from editing. When I try to edit a page, a message appears saying that my account has been blocked due to vandalism from a user called "DemmeKay1138". I have no idea who this user is and I am not responsibility for their behaviour. Why has my account been blocked and can I please get it unblocked ASAP. Whovian99 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Now blocked directly. 
Confirmed to a vandalism-only account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
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.
Whovian99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Can I please receive an explanation as to why my IP address has now been blocked from editing? I submitted an unblock request earlier today because of an error you've made - I'm apparently being punished for the behaviour of user called "DemmeKay1138" who I've never heard of. This request has been denied and my IP address has been blocked. This is an error on your part. Please address this is issue ASAP. Whovian99 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The use of other accounts is checkuser-confirmed and not in doubt. If you have not used other accounts, you will need to give a plausible explanation as to why technical evidence would indicate otherwise. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
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.
Whovian99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You have still not provided any evidence whatsoever to support your claim. On my user page, it says I have been blocked because I formerly edited under the username User:TomJasendro. This is true, and that account was blocked three years ago because someone gained access to my login credentials and used the account for disruptive editing. Once I regained control of the account, I was advised by User:Boing! said Zebedee to identify a new account (this one) as the successor account of the blocked account. You can read all this on the July 2017 discussion on User talk:TomJasendro. As I said, this was three years ago and was an issue that has been dealt with. I do not, however, have anything to do with this "DemmeKay1138" account and you have not demonstrated any evidence that I have. My user page only connects me with User:TomJasendro. Where is the evidence that I have anything to do with DemmeKay1138? How do you expect me to defend myself against an accusation that you can't prove? It is impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof rests on you. As far as I can tell, you are only accusing me of having anything to do with DemmeKay1138 because I am connected with a former account that was disruptive. That's guilt by association. These accusations are completely untrue, and I must ask once again where your evidence is. Whovian99 (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed to DemmeKay1138. There's no doubt here, the technical overlap is unambiguous. Yamla (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
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.
Whovian99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is an absolutely absurd situation and I am honestly shocked at Wikipedia's lack of professionalism in this matter. Once again you are simply declaring an untrue statement to be true, and providing no evidence to support your claim. This is blatent and completely unprovoked discrimination that does not hold true to the values this site is built on. The irony of me being blocked when I am the victim of multiple personal attacks by moderators is laughably absurd. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Let them make this unambiguously clear: I have no clue who DemmeKay1138 is and I have no responsibility whatsoever they have done to prompt this situation. Stop making this a witch hunt against an innocent party.
Multiple times now I have asked for evidence of your nonsensical claims. The only thing you have proven is that I formerly edited the name TomJasendro, something I admitted to and explained. You have not provided any evidence to support the idea that their are "techincal overlaps" between me and this user. Simply saying that is not proof. Where is the evidence? What are the technical overlaps? I was previously told that I would need to provide a plausible reason as go why the technical evidence suggests that I am connected to DemmeKay1138. Not only is this nonsensical, the burden of proof is on you, but I cannot possibly explain anything unless I am provided with a copy of the technical evidence. I have not been, I'm simply told that you have if. please provide a copy of the technical evidence.
Of course, the answer is that they are none. This issue is complete nonsense with no basis. You can try and deny that all you want, but it's just your word agsint mine. The difference is, you're trying to prove something. I'm just trying to maintain the status quo.
This is the most disgusting abuse of power I have ever seen. What worries make that the disruptive editor you're trying to stop is still active while you're wasting time making me jump through hoops. Now, you can continue wasting everybody's time or can lift this foolish block and apologise for your disgraceful behaviour. The choice is yours.
Whovian99 (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
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.
Whovian99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is an exercise in stupidity. I have asked four times now: please provide evidence to support your claim that I am a "Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts". This is an untrue claim, and Checkuser is a completely unaccountable body because you provide no evidence to support your decisions and do not allow users to appeal your decisions. This is fascism. I am not interested in simply being told some bogus claim again. Let me make this clear: please give me evidence of your statements. This is highlighting serious issues with Wikipedia's moderation procedures. If Checkuser is making fraudulent attacks against innocent users, then I would suggest it is an extremely flawed system. Seeing as I have been ignored four times now, I am going to repeat this four times. Please listen to it. Please give me evidence of your statements. Please give me evidence of your statements. Please give me evidence of your statements. Please give me evidence of your statements.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
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.
Checkusers are restricted from sharing the direct data due to privacy requirements. Your violations of WP:SOCK have been confirmed by multiple checkusers. This is going nowhere. Talk page access revoked. --Yamla (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Orphaned non-free image File:State Netball Hockey Centre Logo.gif
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:State Netball Hockey Centre Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Melbourne Sports & Aquatic Centre Logo.gif
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Melbourne Sports & Aquatic Centre Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
