User talk:AltGold

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What does "No reason to unblock" mean? You are in effect declaring that the standard on Wikipedia is "Guilty until presumed innocent". I request a formal hearing on this matter, otherwise you force me to violate wikipedia policy and create a sockpuppet so I can edit in the future. I have been civil, I have not violate wikipedia regulations, and I have been pursuing this matter through the approved and sanctioned channels by making requests. A less civil user would not have done so. Why am I being punished for (A) creating an article, (B) trying to continue editing by using approved channels, and not resorting to subterfuge and new account creation? I have not vandalized pages. I have not attacked others or been uncivil. I have simply created a page, which I would now like to open under a request for comment to discuss its deletion. I am asking one more time to be unblocked and to have a hearing on my status, before I create an alternative account and request further action in another channel.

Decline reason:

You have been blocked as a sockpuppet. By threatening to create another account to take action, you are only presenting more evidence to support sock puppetry. Please note that further abuse of this template will simply result in your talk page being protected. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No, I am not a new user, I used to edit Wikipedia years ago. I created a new account because I cannot access my old account, as I do not remember the password. I last edited logged in 2005, 4 years ago. Since then I have just edited anonymously, off an on, maybe once a month. This is the first time I have had need to upload an image, or create an article since then. Like it or not, Wikipedia has been around for eight years and Mediawiki is the dominant wiki style on the web. I myself administer three Mediawiki installs for various projects. Most web savvy individuals know the style, the editing language, and have edited here and there on wikipedia. Knowledge of the system does not imply "long-established Wikipedia editor", whatever that means. I do not consider myself one, I haven't edited regularly except for a short stint in the summer of 2005.

Decline reason:

No valid reason for why you should be unblocked. Blueboy96 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet of John Bambenek. Why does creating an article of this person mean I am a sockpuppet?

Decline reason:

You are plainly not a new user, based on your contributions history. Since creating new accounts to avoid scrutiny on your earlier accounts is not allowed per WP:SOCK, I see no reason to unblock. Even if you are not John Bambenek, you are someone who is already a long-established Wikipedia editor, and this account is not a valid use of alternate accounts, so it will remain blocked. Jayron32 14:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

I am not John Bambenek. I wrote the article about him today (registering so I could upload a screen cap of his ABC news appearance), because I believe him to be noteable. I only ask for a fair and even approach and discussion on the article I have written about him. While it needs some work, I believe it is a good start. I understand there is strong anti-POV on Wikipedia about John Bambenek, likely due to his articles which have been critical of Wikipedia.

John's a troll, and a bit of a jerk, but that doesn't make him not notable. I am a bit alarmed at the response I have received. Can't this be discussed instead of blocking me so I can't even put the hangon tag on the article I spent time writing today? I think a discussion is warranted, and my block is unjust. AltGold (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)