User talk:Auyth876g8bg
Auyth876g8bg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have no idea why I was blocked. What do you mean by "block evasion"??
Decline reason:
As i am sure you know, when your account is blocked it is you who is blocked, not just that account. Creating a new account to avoid the block brings us up to the present, does it not? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:13, 28 December 2011 (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.
Auyth876g8bg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was never blocked, and this is my first time editing. It told me to make an account so that other people on my IP don't get mixed up with me, so I did; now I'm blocked for making an account, which it SAID to do.
Decline reason:
You are well aware of your prior block, as demonstrated in your response to that block. See: diff of prior account comment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:31, 29 December 2011 (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.
Auyth876g8bg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't see how that guy's user page with the same IP as me demonstrates anything. That's not even my post. "You are well aware of your prior block, as demonstrated in your response to that block." How would I be aware of it as demonstrated by someone else's talk page with block warnings on it? All I see there is a block warning, an admin telling him to start a fan site, and him calling you a noob.
Decline reason:
Please. A glance at the following deleted pages makes the case pretty clear: Ant Tantrum Studios, Ant Tantrum Company, Ant Tantrum). Declined. —DoRD (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2011 (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.
Auyth876g8bg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm actually a different person, but I was told by the other guy to post the article again since it was deleted. It's been posted many times from different IPs and different people, actually. The guy sent a mass email to like 30 people saying that Wikipedia kept removing the Ant Tantrum article, so I reposted it since I know Ant Tantrum and love their music. I think the others did too. If you are banning me by the duck test, you are mistaken.
Decline reason:
Meatpuppetry is against the rules, and is treated exactly the same as sockpuppeting. Canvassing is also a violation of policy. I'm sorry, but unblock is not going to happen here. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:02, 29 December 2011 (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.
Auyth876g8bg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The other guy is the one who is puppeting, not me. I just did what he said. It doesn't say in the rules that I can be banned for that, it just says that people can be banned for telling others to support them. If you banned him, good, but I don't want to be banned if I didn't break any rules.
Decline reason:
Have you read the policy? "The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. It is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts..."[emphasis added] You've admitted that you used this account to breach that policy. This account is blocked as a result. If you want unblocked, I'd suggest (1) letting some time pass before making the request and (2) being prepared to demonstrate how you will contribute in full compliance with the rules on a go-foward basis. —C.Fred (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2011 (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.
(edit conflict)First of all, it's a block, not a WP:BAN. Secondly, you have broken a rule - by editing because he told you to, you are a meatpuppet of his, and meatpuppetry is a blockable offence. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not break any rules, such as meatpuppeting, but I accept that I have been blocked because the block is for all affected accounts, and the other guy did break rules. I will let time pass before I make another appeal, but I am already a good contributor by posting a useful article on Ant Tantrum. I did not see anywhere in the article on meatpuppetry that being a puppet is an offense, only that making puppets is an offense.
Ant Tantrum Records. Deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.85.80 (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
At this rate, I think it would be faster just to get a new IP to avoid confusion. I think it shouldn't take too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auyth876g8bg (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 December 2011
- Wow ... you're just not getting it.
- The fourth sentence at WP:MEAT states: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." You were appropriately blocked for that reason.
- The article you "created" was, by your own claim, simply a reposting of content created by the other editor. If you are now claiming that you were the creator of that content, then we're back to WP:SOCK rather than WP:MEAT. Regardless, the advert created for Ant Tantrum fails multiple policies and guidelines, a sample of which include WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:ARTSPAM, and WP:RS - the advert was appropriately deleted for those reasons, among others.
- Lastly, you are now claiming an intent to create a new account to bypass this block - a self-admission of being willing to sock, regardless of if you were currently a meatpuppet or sockpuppet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)