User talk:333vip333

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

333vip333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand what I was blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead.

Decline reason:

Please actually explain your understanding of what you are blocked for, and explain how your approach to Wikipedia will change if you are unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

333vip333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I was blocked for recreating a page that is under dispute as part of a deletion discussion and in doing so violated copyright too. I got passionate about my edits and caught up in the heat of the moment and didn't fully understand how Wikipedia worked. I will not do it again. I have read extensively about proper Wikipedia user conduct and will make productive contributions instead specifically to pages such as Javed Fiyaz and Alexander Mamut and Emirates Hills. To clarify Boing! said Zebedee's comment below, I did not engage in block evasion or undeclared paid editing.333vip333 (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. Again. —DoRD (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

*As per WP:BLANKING, please do not remove declined unblock requests while blocked, as the next reviewing admin will need to see them - I have reinstated the one you removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your block reason is "either block evasion, or undeclared paid editing, or both", and your latest unblock request does not address that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not engage in either of those behaviors Boing! said Zebedee. 333vip333 (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The technical evidence described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Editor895 suggests otherwise. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BLANKING, you are not allowed to remove declined block requests while the block is active - I have restored them now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]