User talk:Canterberry

If you can't treat your own with justice, how can you expect the rest of the world to trust you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.230.139 (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My IP address is about to be hard-blocked, so its "goodbye". Canterberry 00:35, 25 October 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think that an indefinite block was quite unwarranted. This was a first offence, and a warning or a short block would have sufficed to allow a "cooling off" period. This was an edit war that got out of hand (which I admitted), and that was all. I do not consider that I was being "abusive". I came clean and openly admitted that I had been using some old accounts of mine to "annoy" SouthernElectric, but that was all. The accounts that I used against SE had been dormant (you can check that), and I had not been operating in the fashion of a "sock-puppet" in terms of trying to manipulate or subvert an article towards my own view. I had been a productive editor, and until this incident, I had tried to behave. A warning and a short block was more appropriate. I admitted to being a multiple account user, and I explained why this was (in order to walk away from an edit war, perhaps I should have followed my past tactic, and done that before this got out of hand. I think you should reconsider your punishment of me, as an indefinite block for a first time offence, when I openly held up my hands is a bit OTT. As I said, a short block, to serve as a warning and to allow some "cooling off" was more what I would have expected. I can confirm that I am nothing whatsoever to do with Lucy-marie, and I have not tampered or interfered with any line templates. I promise to behave from now on.

Decline reason:

Your request indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of our sockpuppetry policy. It does not matter whether the socks were actively in use, or whether you were using them to manipulate the article - the point is that you did use them to actively disrupt and harass a user you were in dispute with. It also indicates a certain confusion about our blocking policy. A block is not a punishment - really, we have got better things to do than to attempt to induce contrition or embarrass you. It is a preventative measure, in order to stop or postpone disruption to our processes - something which you admit to doing. The fact that you "openly held up [your] hands" also factors little in the decision to block you, as even after that we have no assurance that you will discontinue use of multiple accounts, or breaching civility, or edit warring. When you disrupt the way the encyclopedia works, you get blocked; it's a fairly simple concept. You may request unblock again, but I believe the block was entirely justified, given the lack of a promise to stop. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:43, 26 October 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did promise to behave. Please re-read the final sentence of my original unblock request.

Decline reason:

You admit that you had been using some old accounts of mine to "annoy" SouthernElectric which is blatant harassment and wanton sockpupptery. Denied. — IrishGuy ^talk 08:25, 26 October 2007 (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.

Reviewer, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Second pair of eyes please... for prior discussion. GRBerry 22:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read my 'character assessment' at the same place. While I agree that disciplinary action is necessary, an indefinite block is very harsh and deprives WP of a valuable contributor who happened to 'have a bad day' and allowed things to get seriously out-of-hand. A short-term block should suffice, with a longer block if further incidents occur. (Note - I have no connection with this user except as a fellow editor.) -- EdJogg 09:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the recipient of his sock puppetry and his truly personal attacks (publicly questioning my state of mind, purely on my contribution history) I would like to remind people that this was not just a 'bad day' but one that started on 16 October and resumed when I restored my user/talk pages after having walked away from that page and others (I even cleared my watched pages and lodged-out for a time) for over a week. At the time of his personal attack on me (using his sock puppets) I had not made any substantive edit or talk page contribution (and still haven't) to the article were the disagreement started or indeed pages were he had (to our knowledge) involvement, I would also point out that this whole issue came from his use of WP:BOLD despite a slowly forming consensus on the relevant talk page. SouthernElectric 10:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I am only going to ask once more to be unblocked. Unless WP:UKT has a real surplus of editors, then I see no purpose in banning me (which is what has been done). I sincerely apologise to SouthernElectric, and I promise not to go near any page that this person edits. Over the last week I have had time to reflect, and I have also been looking at the block logs of some other editors. To ban me as being disruptive is quite the most inconsistent and unjustifiable act that have seen on WP. Until this time, I had zero blocks, and had never even had a warning from an admin, yet I get an indefinite block (a ban, to all intents and purposes). Yet other editors with a long history of disruptive behaviour get short bans or warnings. I shall give Lucy-marie as an example, as I think that some people think that I am one and the same. Anyone with half a brain should be able to detect that our styles and behaviours are of opposite polarity. But consider Pigsonthewing for comparison. I have had run ins with this editor over the use of GIS coordinates, I will admit. Currently, this user is blocked for one year, not banned as I am. Yet look at the block log and you will see a long history of disruptive behaviour, whereas I have nothing. So can the Admins please reconcile these differences, and give an explanation. Pigsonthewing must have wasted so much of the time of other editors and the admins, yet will still be allowed back to WP. I have nothing like this, yet I will never be allowed back. I guess I must be missing the point about what "disruption" consists of. I have a record of positive contributions. Yes, I accept that I need to apply more restraint when dealing with other editors, but this episode has given me a sharp warning. I am not going to push it any more after this. I have my own website and that keeps me quite busy enough. I have enjoyed contributing to WP, as it has a much wider audience than my rather specialist website. For the benefit of an reviewing Admin, please disregard the "character" comments given below, as I think that such things are not relevant to my case.}}

Original WP:AN discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive107#Second pair of eyes please.... I originally said "since this is outside my comfort zone, should the admitted puppetteer have an indefinite block? I accept any change to that duration, provided the changer has first investigated the possibility of a Lucy-marie relationship." I think the L-m relationship question has been resolved as "not related" in that discussion, at least sufficiently for my concern. GRBerry 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the 'victim' I have no problems with an unblock but would like some form of long-term civility monitoring of Canterberry, not as some form of vengeance but because I think Canterberry needs to learn to stop shooting from the hip. I don't see any point in anyone promising not to go near any article I edit, as part of any condition of an unblock, that would just open the door to me being accused to 'banning the user by my presence' should we both end up in the same article! All I ask for is that WP:BOLD should not be used in place of WP:ROAD-ROLLER when discussion is taking place but consensus is still forming. SouthernElectric 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it 24 hours (say 23.59 UK time on 6 Nov); if no-one's made any objection here or on my talk page by then I'll unblock. I don't have time to monitor him myself, but would suggest that if there are any civility issues, or any broad consensus to do so at WP:UKT, he be immediately reblocked pending an explanation by himself. If I don't hear any objections to this I'll go ahead and do it. — iridescent 00:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the convicted 'assailant', all I ask for is a fair trial, which I thus far do not think that I have had. Un-blocking me and placing me in a ball and chain has no logic. Futhermore, it does not stack up with the punishment and treatment given to others. I reject the offer of an unblock by — iridescent for the reason that we have interacted in the past, and he must sit on the sidelines and be impartial, lest another admin see his unblock as being biassed, and it should affect his adminship (I am not worth it, and he should not place himself in this position).

To whomever Admin reviews my case, please disregard the offer of a block by iridescent

This link indicates bias by this admin. "Note to whoever reviews this - it may be a complete coincidence but in the ten minutes immediately before Canterberry's unblock request my talk page came under a barrage of vandalism from UK-based IPs ([24], [25], [26]). — iridescent 22:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)"

I state 'for the record' that the 'vandalism' incurred by iridescent had absolutely nothing to do with me, in any way shape or form. A simple check on the IP addresses used should confirm this. Nonetheless, the above should be enough to invalidate the unblock request offered by this admin (no matter how well intentioned it may have been) Canterberry 01:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement of SouthernElectric has some merit, and I have seen other editors have this imposed on them, but I would like to see this justified in the context of my position. I do want to come back and edit, but it must be on the basis of a logical reason that fits with the 'crime' committed, and the 'sentencing' criteria of WP. Finally, I would like the reasoning of the previous admins to be considered. My case has been 'reviewed' twice and rejected, so if I am to be unblocked, then there must be a reason to overturn, and an explanation of why the previous reviews are no longer considered sound. Canterberry 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that some might be wondering why I placed the above. As an editor, I give my time and expertise voluntarily and without charge. If WP wants my contributions, then fine, I am happy to give them. But if any admin has problem with me, or feels that problems are likely to arise in the future (based on a logical assessment of my past), then I suggest that the ban continue. What I want, is for the community to compare and contrast my ban against how it has dealt with other editors. If the community is comfortable with a ban, then I have no objections. If not, then I suggest that the community needs to give more thought to its 'sentencing' of offenders before unblocking me. Like I said, I just want a fair trial. Canterberry 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it everyone. I came here for the wrong reason. I love contributing to WP, but the sense of opposition is overwhelming. I can see where SouthernElectric is coming from when he says that an unblock, that would just open the door to me being accused to 'banning the user by my presence' should we both end up in the same article! For the opposite reason, I can see that I would have to walk away from edits because another editor objected and to argue my case would lead to my being automatically banned. That argument is a double-edged sword. Also, if other editors knew my history, then I could be open to being "baited", and led into an argument, which would lead to my being automatically banned. It is all a "lose lose" situation for my viewpoint even if I were to be unblocked (which is highly unlikely).

Its best all round that I stay banned, but my views on 'sentencing' still apply. Canterberry 01:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've 86'ed your unblock request, per this comment. Feel free to restore it, or, to request again, should you change your mind in the future. SQL ^{Query me!} 06:03, 6 November 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Can I return to the Community, please. As I have stated above, I think that I have been treated exceptionally harshly. I was a productive editor, and a positive one. Yes, I am a bit hot-headed, but I will control that from now on, I promise. I came clean about using multiple accounts, but that does not make me a sock. With hindsight, I see that my admission made it too easy for the Admins to condemn me (something that I shall not forget). I have a lot to offer, and when you compare me against pigsonthewing, I think you will see that I have not wasted the admins time, nor caused as much disruption, as would merit a ban. This user has a history of disruption as long as the Great Wall of China, yet will be back within a year, yet I do one stupid act and get a spell on death row. I honestly ask any reviewing admin to "square the circle" on this. For one more time, I did a bad thing, I came clean, I have apologised to the user that I offended, I have promised to behave (many times), what more does the Community want from me. And if I am considered the "Charles Manson" of Wikipedia, then I expect others to be 'sentenced' accordingly.

Decline reason:

per GRBerry below.— — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 13 November 2007 (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.

Given that the unblock request was added by one user then resigned by this one, I have a real hard time believing that this user won't use more puppets in the future. See also the contribs of Catlows Cat. I was actually considering on my way home tonight whether to reduce this block - then I come online and see more puppetry. That doesn't inspire me to reduce my own block. GRBerry 01:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I submit. The view of the Community is quite clearly against me. I shall not venture here again. By the way, please no not block User:Beechgrove, it is not another sock of mine. I have declared all my other accounts, and the last one User:Catlows Cat was meant to show that I could edit responsibly ... so much for that idea! I do not want innocent users to be punished for the merest thought in some admins head, that it is me. I shall not darken the doorstep anymore. I still think that you have used a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and that editors that vandalise this place (and whom I thought were considered a more serious crime) get treated more fairly than I was. -- Canterberry (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being honest - it is part of why we think you may be redeemable. Indefinite is not forever - as I said above, I was actually considering unblocking you at the time that I discovered Catlows Cat was your puppet. You were blocked for two things; puppetry and making personal attacks. Doing both in combination is fairly serious. Using another sockpuppet while blocked dug yourself a deeper hole. Your unwillingess to be unblocked on the conditions that Iridescent proposed also doesn't help - it amounts to requiring that you not repeat the behavior that got you blocked the first time. If you think that you can be civil and participate using just one account, you will be welcomed back after a suitable time out. Let's talk again in December? -- GRBerry (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please just finish this, and now, so that everyone can move on. redeemable ... yeah, whatever. I give you my solemn word, that I have ceased all activity on Wikipedia, and will never recommence. Considering all that has happened, my return to this place is no longer feasible. You know it, I know it, and others involved know it. More importantly, the "Community" knows it. And by "Community", I mean you, thats “you” as in GRBerry, because as an Admin you represent the “Community”. I have been arrested, charged, tried, and sentenced. My sentence is an indefinite ban, and must be served, lest the "Community" has got it wrong, and that seems as unlikely as snow falling in hell.

The "Community" asks if we can "talk again in December?". Excuse me, but what is the point of issuing me with an indefinite block (a permanent ban), if you do not intend to stick to it? In my first unblock request, I suggested a "cooling off" period, but this was rejected by Riana ⁂ on the basis that I did not understand the blocking policy of the community ... "A block is not a punishment - really, we have got better things to do than to attempt to induce contrition or embarrass you. It is a preventative measure, in order to stop or postpone disruption to our processes". Honestly ... please stop being so condescending. If you only wanted to block me for a day, a week, a month or a year, then thats what you should have done. It would have given both sides time to think and reflect. But to ban me for good ... well as long as it fits with the punishment you deal out to "equivalent" offenders, then fine.

Anyhow, before I leave for good, I shall give you some feedback, on what I have learned from this place. Firstly, it is unstable. It allows anyone to edit, voluntarily. Yet it uses the volunteers (as Admins) to protect the place from a variety of "vandals", which limits them from contributing. I do wonder what the Admins get out of this place, other than a lot lot of grief? Secondly, every Admin has access to so many rules, recommendations and guidelines, that there is so much scope for interpretation as to make the aforesaid "rules, recommendations and guidelines" almost redundant. If anyone wants proof of this, just watch this page,Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ,and see how the admins cannot reach a decision on anything. Thirdly, how pointless it is. Every edit can be reverted, and in the bigger picture, there is a growing doubt about the veracity of the articles.Wikipedia#Criticism. I am aware of a website that takes the "best" of wikipedia articles and attests to their accuracy, and which can only be edited by registered user who have a good history of editing on WP.

I hope that I have made more good edits than bad ones, even though I have upset one too many other editors. Also, I apologize unreservedly to anyone, including SouthernElectric, that I have might offended. Nonetheless, I must now leave, as it seems clear (from the discussion below) that there are a lot of people playing "Where's Wally", and that my presence (or rather absence), seems to be causing a greater degree of "disruption" to this place, than the original incident!! Canterberry (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite does not mean "forever". Indefinite means "without a pre-determined end date", and can generally be lifted when there is reason to believe that the problems that led to the block will not be repeated. In terms of considering "'equivalent' offenders", you should look at other people that have used sockpuppets to engage in personal attacks. My suggestion to talk again next month was because I believe that after a suitable time away it may be appropriate to allow you to resume editing. GRBerry 01:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I have no idea who "SE" below is, but I strongly doubt that they are an editor in good standing themselves. GRBerry 01:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of almighty, I would have thought it obvious that I have created more sockpuppets!! It is in my nature, for crying out loud!!! I will not stop whatever you do. All of the accounts listed below are ones that I have created in order to evade being blocked ... Keith Heywood, Tankerton, AndAnotherUser, PlusAnotherUser. Blocking my IP addresses (thats plural) is the only solution, and must be carried out.

Want to know the total truth. Get ready. I am SouthernElectric!!! I use one IP address at home, and another at work (to avoid detection). I also have two internet providers, which is how I can change IP addresses.

Hell, I am going to go out with a big bang!!! Ha, ha, ha ... SUCKERS. I will sock-puppet FOREVER!!!Canterberry (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tee-Hee! You utter b*****d!! :o)

Farewell Canterberry, as you sail off into the sunset.

Here's to many more positive contributions to WP, under whatever name!!

EdJogg (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would return once last time to see what has happened. You will be glad to hear that my period of "cold turkey" has passed, and I no longer feel any need to edit. In fact I have been reading about the decline of Wikipedia in terms of edits [1] due to various factors. There are numerous other websites that document this decline. I have to admit that when I first read the stories about the decline, that it made me want to get involved, but now I see that I simply "missed the boat", and that I am grateful to have been banned, as it means that I am no longer wasting my time on something whose time has come and gone. Fare thee well, but don't work too hard, this place is going downhill.

By the way, check out the amount of "disruption" that this event has caused Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_Jehochman/Workshop ... I guess you really have to be a committed person to want to volunteer for this stuff Canterberry (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing. I shall be contributing to this website [2], and using a few new socks to modiy/alter/remove information from Wikipedia. If only you had given me a more considered punishment, this could have been avoided.Canterberry (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actions of this admin --> GRBerry will come home to roost, I am going to use every sock I can muster to ensure thta this place continues its decline. I shall ... ... well thats for me to know ... and you to find out!! But I make no bones about it ... this place must suffer, in order to allow other websites to flourish. Mr Wales might yet wish to reconsider whether to allow anyone to edit pages ... hence inviting all and sundry ... and thus requiring admins to voluntarily clear up the mess. I call for registration.

Anon-posted comments of questionable validity

USer:Canterbrry is a (removed WP:good faith) and a bloomin (removed WP:good faith). The evidence is stated below. This "editor" is still making edits as User:AndAnotherUser and is also trolling User:Tankerton. This "editor" must never , ever be un=blocked, nor let back in, he is horrible, and I do not like him

There's another User:AndAnotherUser, SE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.251.46 (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This also worth looking at: User:Tankerton, SE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Heywood (talk • contribs) 08:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments are nothing to do with me, in case anyone is thinking "SE" was in some how my sig-line. SouthernElectric (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was very suspicious of those comments. The two 'contributors' have only made one edit on WP, to this page, and the use of the signature 'SE' would appear to be intended to re-ignite the issues which have led to the block (see previous comment by SouthernElectric). Perhaps posted by someone with a grudge against Canterberry?

However, looking at the contribs for AndAnotherUser (talk · contribs), Tankerton (talk · contribs) and PlusAnotherUser (talk · contribs) does suggest that the 'suspect' user names quoted might have been created by the same user: 'AndAnotherUser' has edited in much the same areas as Canterberry, yet has acted as an utterly responsible editor (and is the only one currently 'active'); 'Tankerton' has only made four edits: 2 to own page, one to curiously remove Canterberry's entry in the wikiProject:UK Railways Participants list, and one unguarded comment on a talk page (on the same day and late hour as Canterberry made an unguarded comment on this page!); while 'PlusAnotherUser' has only added himself to the same project participant list (2 edits).

What this goes to show is that even an IP block is of little use against an editor determined to contribute to WP!! (Just find another PC with a different IP address, and you're away!!)

EdJogg (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is likely that there are at least two sets of second+ accounts here - the IP and account signing as SE and the accounts they point the finger at. What I don't see is blatant evidence as to who any of them are. Nor any real evidence to conclude that any of them are Canterberry. Tankerton is clearly a problem, and was blocked by JzG almost 2 weeks ago. PlusAnotherUser is clearly a second/alternate account, whose is not clear. AndAnotherUser is also clearly a second/alternate account, again whose is not clear. Keith Heywood also appears to be a second/alternate account, again whose is not clear. In addition to the known prior puppet masters involved with UK trains, any of the many other persistent Wikipedia vandals could responsible. These are all generally problematic editors to be monitored (preferrably by someone who already watchlists the relevant pages), but nothing proven enough for me to act on, and no clear link to Canterberry - so further discussion should be elsewhere; perhaps the talk page of WP:UKT? GRBerry (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still blocked, yet others that I consider more "disruptive" continue to edit

I have been watching the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard over the last couple of weeks, with a keen eye on User:Durova who has been the subject of a quite enormous amount of admin investigation, and the input of GRBerry. To be frank, if this "investigation" is not disruptive to the process of building an encyclopedia, then I do not know what is. Anyhow, my findings are that despite what User:Jimbo Wales says (oh yes, he was also involved in the Durova case!!!), and I quote "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites ...", I really must beg to differ. There really is a definite and very distinct hierarchy in this place, and it is clearly based on the number of edits made (the more you make, the more important you are). Anyhow, if someone wants my input to this place, then perhaps they might like to consider my case one further time. I am moving house in January, and I will be using a new IP address. I have not used any more sock to edit, barring one that I used to apologise to two users for the inconvenience that I caused to them. I am not going to request another unblock, as I believe that this place need to decide whether it wants to have the benefit of my expertise or not. To be honest, this is a rhetorical question, and I know the answer. Glostrop (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my next move is to make a WP:RFAR which will really take up the time of the admins, something I would have hoped to have avoided. I really cannot fathom out what rules or guidelines apply to my case. There seem to be such a multitude ... that any admin could pick or choose from ... based on their own prejudices and presumptions. I'll give it another week, and then I shall really cause some disruption, by requesting arbitration ... and then maybe the admins involved in my case might wish to review their actions and explain their rationale, especially in respect of other "disruptive" users whom they have punished with far lighter sentences. Canterberry (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I hereby acknowlegde that GRBerry is second only to the almighty Jesus, and that I should pray each day for his forgiveness, and redemption. I pray that can continue to be humiliated and scorned upon whenever GRBerry feels the need, and that my contributions be reverted at will, despite many hours of labour. I submit to scrunity by any just body that wished to preside over me, and subject me to their will, and without argument or question. I further submit to being a doormat for any admin that wishes to walk over me, and cleaneth their feet upon me, and will duly enjoy it. I recsind all humanity that I possess, and embrace slavery unto my master GRBerry whom I shall serve until he gaineth promotion to the ArbCom that his ego requireth.

Decline reason:

The admins have deemed that your request is declined and henceforth your user talk page is blocked to prevent unblock abuse. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 11 December 2007 (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.