From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 am not a sockpuppet of user:R00m c. I don't even know who that is. Please unblock me! -- ScoutCruft (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "Sorry, you're also blocked for disruption, and this reason doesn't address that. You were tagging a large number of pages for notability concerns in quick succession, including many that are inherently notable, even after being asked to stop. — Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:33, 23 April 2008 (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.
- If not, you both seem to share an interest in mass tagging articles on Scout camps. It seems rather obvious that this is not your only account. If Room c isn't your main account, what is? --B (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is my only account on Wikipedia. I have been an active reader of wikipedia for a long time and I have worked on other wiki projects for years -- why would you assume that I must be a sock puppet? ScoutCruft (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:DUCK. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 23 April 2008 (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: "On behalf of this user I am requesting an unblock. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/R00m c. No evidence of sockpuppet usage, and we sure as hell don't make indef blocks for minor offenses like this. It's already been a few days, so he's probably gotten the point by now, and deserves another chance. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "This user's first edit[1] makes it cleat that (s)he is not new to Wikipedia, no matter whose sock they are. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 06:05, 27 April 2008 (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.
