User talk:Arnhem 96

Apologies to SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) et al for what some of your colleagues seem determined to put you through - as you can see, I have been blocked by User:Kww, who seems to think all the other admins erred by not blocking me in the hours before he came along, and who by total coincidence is also an unashamed NFCC hardliner. And by another complete coincidence, was the guy who undid Wereith's first block on Wikipedia. If I could be bother I'd also go and confirm that he was a massive cheerleader for Betacommand too, to the bitter end, like Black Kite. Enough said really. Made all the more tragic by the fact that he seems to think he has a chance at getting elected to arbcom. What a delusional fool. Arnhem 96 (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Arnhem 96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked by User:Kww for exposing the fact that User:Wereith is the banned editor User:Betacommand. Kww and Wereith/Betacommand are both unashamed hardliners on the topic of WP:NFCC an its enforcement on Wikipedia, with Kww having unblocked Wereith not a few days earlier. Now, I shouldn't really have to spell out what a monumental abuse this block looks like on just those two facts alone. But if you're in any doubt about the motives behind the block, have a look at the timeline and think about just how many admins must have seen me at AN before Kww did, and had clearly decided to do nothing about me being an ILLEGITIMATE SOCK OMFG WSTOTC. And if you're the sort of person who thinks the ends justify the means even in the case of bad blocks, fine, just take ownership of the block yourself, but make sure to issue a reprimand to Kww so others know what he gets up to. If he tells you to f-off, then you'll know you were right to reprimand him. Arnhem 96 (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't have much in common with Kww, but it's a reasonable block, and I've declined the unblock request, and will "take ownership" of the block if that makes you feel better. I've also locked this talk page, as there is no possibility of unblocking an ILLEGIT sock. If you want to edit WP space, use your actual account; don't hide behind a throw-away. And if, as I suspect, your actual account is indef blocked due to old battles with Betacommand, then it's pretty hypocritical to complain about what you're complaining about. Floquenbeam (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2013 (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.

SPI

The SPI clerk has requested diffs. Can you assist with any of these? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]