User talk:CountPointercount

Welcome!

Hello, CountPointercount, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! alphachimp 15:32, 16 February 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).

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

Request reason:

Please see unblock message below, formatting does not fit in template.

Decline reason:

You claim that you are not a sockpuppet but then later present evidence which shows you most definitely are a sockpuppet of RunedChozo (talk · contribs). I think it is clear that you are and so it would be absolutely inappropriate for me to unblock you. -- Yamla 18:53, 16 February 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.

I am not a sockpuppet, as can be seen from my edit history. I have forwarded two letters to the wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.net mailing list to protest this action already, as well as trying to defend myself from hostile and abusive editors on the Administrators' Noticeboard page. I have done nothing wrong and wish only the right to speak in my own defense, something now abusively denied to me. Calling someone a "sockpuppet" and leaving weasel-worded "results" for what should be a yes or no answer on CheckUser does not make it so, it only proves that some serious problem behavior is going on, exactly as that which I laid out in my responses and to which the abusive editors refused to respond, instead choosing to go about killing the messenger.

Reference 1

This sort of behavior on the part of JKelly and others does nothing to help Wikipedia, instead it furthers distrust of administrators, distrust of their motives, and general distrust between editors who do not know when they may be accused of some crime just so that someone can "win" a disagreement without having to have salient points or logic. It is detrimental to the good of wikipedia as a whole.

Nuclear notes that I could easily simply cycle to a new IP address and a new name, and indeed, to edit I could just do that, but the underlying problem is the abuse of administrator powers to deny people the right to speak in their own defense, and this is what has occurred. I am not and have never been incivil, nor have I broken Wikipedia's rules, but JKelly has taken it upon him/herself to place an abusive block for the sole purpose of stopping me from speaking in my own defense against base and false accusations.CountPointercount 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions are quite clear: "This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request." Can you explain how you think ignoring this instruction and calling me a vandal will help? Trebor 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]