From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from using the {{unblock}} template to relay abusive messages to administrators or reposting it after having been denied an unblock by more than one admin. If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here. |
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.
Request reason: "I am no sockpuppet, merely a faithful Wikipedian trying to make positive contributions in the face of numerous unfair blocks. Plese see Church of St. Peter, Brighton and Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell for evidence as to why I should be unblocked. I have been accused of vandalism - this is simply not true. At one point, my account was hacked and a small amount of vadalism perpetrated by the hacker, but the account was simply indefblocked and I did not know how to appeal and had no time to anyway, so I went off. Please rectify this idiotic situation - I mean no harm to anyone and only want to make positive contributions."
Decline reason: "You are a confirmed sockpuppet, please do not try to complain this is your only account on the Wikipedia. This account will not be unblocked. However, your parent account may be unblocked (though I consider this unlikely). -- Yamla 19:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"
This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.
Request reason: "I am no sockpuppet, merely a faithful Wikipedian trying to make positive contributions in the face of numerous unfair blocks. Plese see Church of St. Peter, Brighton and Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell for evidence as to why I should be unblocked. I have been accused of vandalism - this is simply not true. At one point, my account was hacked and a small amount of vadalism perpetrated by the hacker, but the account was simply indefblocked and I did not know how to appeal and had no time to anyway, so I went off. Please rectify this idiotic situation - I mean no harm to anyone and only want to make positive contributions."
Decline reason: "Setting up an account to get around a block is blatant abuse and will not be tolerated. Please see WP:SOCK, the policy you are violating. Your continued abuse of Wikipedia is making it increasingly unlikely that the block on your main account will be lifted. -- Yamla 16:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"
This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.
- Yamla, I appealed no less than 10 times on my previous account and the appeals were mostly just ignored and reverted! Would it be worth going back to my original account and appealing there?
-
- Yes, but given your continued violation of Wikipedia's policies, I'm afraid I have to say that the odds of you getting unblocked are remote at best. You may be better served by not editing the Wikipedia for a full year and then requesting an unblock through your main account. Each time you edit an article, you are violating Wikipedia's policies. --Yamla 16:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Just to add to this, what really put me off when I chanced across your case was your prolongued move war over the naming of that organ article. I couldn't see you were willing to do any constructive dispute resolution there. I'm not sure these edits of yours fall under the definition of "vandalism", but they were clearly disruptive, against consensus and against the spirit of collaborative Wikipedia work. Besides, you happened to be wrong in that dispute; the naming system you wanted simply doesn't fit Wikipedia's conventions. I don't know if that was ever properly pointed out to you. In any case, as long as I don't see an understanding on your part why that behaviour was unacceptable, there's no way you could be unblocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- No-one was willing to tell me what I had done wrong! Also, no-one bothered explaining what was wrong with my pagemoves. Now at least I understand what I did wrong. Please unblock me and allow me to contine the positive edits I have been making.
You have been told several times that this account, a confirmed abusive sockpuppet, will not be unblocked. This page has been protected to your continued abuse of the unblock template. Only your parent account may be unblocked. If that page is protected, please see this page on how to appeal your block. --Yamla 19:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
