User talk:Lou Proctor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from causing disruption.

 This page is currently protected from editing to prevent Lou Proctor (talk • contribs • block logauto) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template.
If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Craig Roger Gregerson

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. One Night In Hackney303 04:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. One Night In Hackney303 04:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry I'll change it back to the right category when you've been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned editor User:Chadbryant, I can wait..... 04:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please hold off on blanking your talk page while this issue is ongoing. It makes it look like you're ignoring the other editor and/or you have something to hide - Alison ☺ 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not blank your talk page in the middle of the discussion of an issue that you brought yourself into WP:ANI. This is not helpful, as there are different arguments that should be weighed. Regards, Phaedriel - 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Chadbryant (talk • contribs • block log • [http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html).  As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Alison ☺ 06:08, 4 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: "I have been singled out for harassment by a user who believes that he owns the article at Craig Roger Gregerson and has manipulated inexperiences admins into doing his dirty work."

Decline reason: "You are blocked as a sockpuppet. You have made no claims that you are unrelated to the vandal known as Chadbryant and so there are no grounds to lift this block at this time. — Yamla 23:21, 4 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.

I wouldn't call myself inexperienced, but, okay. Grandmasterka 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you accepting the comments and accusations of "One Night In Hackney" as fact? I looked up Gregerson's Wikipedia article after reading about him on CrimeLibrary, saw that he was in the wrong religion category, and fixed it. I even provided a source for it. For that, I have been labeled a "sockpuppet" of a user who obviously got under some people's skins a few months back. That is not fair. I don't care about whatever beef people have with "Chadbryant". Lou Proctor 23:12, 4 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: "I've made it quite clear that I am not anyone's "sockpuppet". In the interest of fairness, I think someone without an obvious grudge against "Chadbryant" needs to review this."

Decline reason: "No you have not. "I'm not a sockpuppet because I said so" is not a legitimate rebuttal. — 210physicq (c) 02:14, 5 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.

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: "I find it hard to believe that "guilty until proven innocent" is a value upheld on Wikipedia."

Decline reason: "It's not. But in a situation where a particular banned user is known to have used sockpuppets, and one or more of those sockpuppets have very recently been blocked, and a new user shows up who just happens to share a very similar point of view on very similar articles, the defense needs to be a little more robust than "I said so." Per discussion on WP:AN/I, several users are of the opinion this account seems like a sock; I know that the sockpuppeteer in this case has been a problem before. Contrary to your suggestion, the users you're dealing are neither new nor inexperienced administrators. If you'd like to build a more robust case on your behalf, do feel free. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:55, 5 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.