User talk:EliteBlondeSociety

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because you spammed my inbox, again, I have blocked you as a sockpuppet of User:EastGermanAllStar.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "See abouve. Excuse me, but, with all due respect, I have nothing to do with this, I'm not even quite sure what you are referring to. I request that I be unblocked as I was just about to construct my user page and begin with my contributions, and as my constributions would show, no Wikipedia rule has been violated."

Decline reason: "Denied per below. — IrishGuy talk 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Here's the evidence that you wanted on all of the other accounts. I hadn't even blocked you yet, and you spammed my inbox.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic, but I hardly consider a poorly made, barely legible, self-made, bitmap image evidence. Spamming is never okay, but you really shouldn't block users that have nothing to do with it based on pure speculation. I've never even seen your user account before.EliteBlondeSociety 22:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If it would make you feel better, I can simply ask Ryulong to forward me some examples of the emails. IrishGuy talk 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
He can't prove what is not true, pure and simple. I'm quite offended that this conversation is even going on. I've not violated a single Wikipedia rule.EliteBlondeSociety 22:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It most certainly is true. You have violated a Wikipedia rule by evading a block on your original accounts, all of which is evident from an initial checkuser and the e-mails.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean the checkuser case that is nowhere to be found? This is all speculation, not a single contribution has warrented a block, and your "evidence" is inconclusive at the very best. What "reason" then is there to keep this block going?EliteBlondeSociety 23:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Because I have my own evidence that shows that you are a sockpuppet. You spammed my inbox before I even knew this account existed. You know what you did, and you're wikilawyering your way out of it. If you want to be unblocked, you can use {{unblock}} or have unblock-en-l to ask.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)