User talk:I Wear Two Shoes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yesterday, User:JB196 turned up with a ban-evasion sockpuppet to nominate a number of articles on wrestlers for deletion. When a completely new account pops up today to do the same thing, it looks extremally suspicious, and exactly like a new sockpuppet.

If you are JB196 then understand that being banned implies that you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. If you desire to have this ban overturned, evading the ban by creating sockpuppet accounts is not going to achieve your objective. You should after some months e-mail either the blocking administrator or appeal to the Arbitration Commitee, apologize for the behaviour that led to your ban and ask to have the ban overturned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure that this works, I have never heard of one user who has had an inefinite ban overturned, and whilst I do not doubt that it has occured occassionally there is no doubt that these make up a very small minority. One of the problems of Wikipedia is that administrators treat the place like a school with themselves as the teachers and ordinary editors as the students. Whilst administrators may provately disagree with the actions of other 'teachers' they are afraid to act for fear of being labelled 'unprofessional' and rounded on by all of the other 'teachers.' Thats my opinion anyway.--Edchilvers 22:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If an ban was improperly placed, it could very easily be overturned. Placing {{unblock}} on your talk page will start the review process immediately. We administrators are completely unreasonable. If administrators get it wrong they should be more than happy to correct it, but disrespect yields disrespect. I don't appreciate being spoken of in broad generalizations like this. Certainly I would be more happy to respond positively towards a request that didn't simultaneously slander me in some way.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 09:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)