User talk:Berkinstock

Small edits to Peter Holmes a Court page adjusting language to NPOV.

Cluebot made a false positive. I have reported it. Berkinstock (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for long-term edit warring and sock puppetry. (blocked by –MuZemike 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

After looking at the contributions of your and other accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/James1168, it is clear that they are all the same person. Furthermore, it seems that you are attempting to "cover your tracks" and create a new account when someone gets suspicious; also, you have done this to persist in (mostly POV) edit-warring on Peter Holmes à Court. This is circumventing the sock puppetry policy, and you have been trying to deceive users for about 3 years now. That stops now. –MuZemike 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree to stick with one and only one account from now on, I (or another admin) would be willing to unblock you. –MuZemike 01:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Hello, I dont know who any of those people are. I have one account and have recently been working with other editors to make the said page NPOV. I have not engaged in edit warring and never will. If you check the history page, the events will be clear. You could also have a look at the BLPnoticeboard for the said page.}}

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I dont know who any of those people are. I have one account and have recently been working with other editors to make the said page NPOV. I have not engaged in edit warring and never will. If you check the history page, the events will be clear. You could also have a look at the BLPnoticeboard for the said page.

Decline reason:

As you invited, I actually did look at a lot of edit history and I'm sorry to say that, based on the distinctive style of your edits, their timing, syntax, etc., I agree with User:MuZemike's assessment and the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation. My understanding of this process tells me that User:MuZemike is being lenient and trying to help you when he suggested he would unblock you as long as you restrict yourself to a single account; I wouldn't have. I suggest that if you want to contribute here further, that's a condition you should seriously consider accepting unreservedly. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:15, 3 June 2010 (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.

{{unblock|I agree to stick to one account and in fact only have one account, nevertheless, I agree to stick to one account.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You have agreed to stick with only one account from this point forth as stipulated on the top of this page. Note that any further activity noted before will result in reblocking.

Request handled by: –MuZemike

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.