User talk:Dennbergstraße

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

68.35.123.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "EineNeueSchuhe". The reason given for EineNeueSchuhe's block is: "Sock puppet of banned user: This user has been blocked indefinitely because the user is a sock puppet of Ichträgtkeineschuhe. Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.".

Blocking administrator: Dgies (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: I find it highly likely that this is also a sockpuppet. — John Reaves (talk) 21:43, 23 April 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).

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

Request reason:

Likelyhood does not entail proof or even reasonable evidence. You have blocked me for no better reason than gut feelings, a form of profiling, and a breach of the Wikipedia rules which Jimbo Wales would NOT approve of. I did not even get to make but ONE contribution. Would you please unblock me so that I can take my place as a productive member of Wikipedia?

Decline reason:

The autoblock tells us everything we need to know. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:56, 24 April 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.

The duck test is not at all against the rules. In fact, it's right in them. Sorry. If you want to request a checkuser, feel free, but I have a feeling you might neglect to do so. Part Deux 17:40, 24 April 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).

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

Request reason:

Likelyhood does not entail proof or even reasonable evidence. You have blocked me for no better reason than gut feelings, a form of profiling, and a breach of the Wikipedia rules which Jimbo Wales would NOT approve of. I did not even get to make but ONE contribution. Would you please unblock me so that I can take my place as a productive member of Wikipedia?

Decline reason:

See Lindstraße (talk · contribs). — Sandstein 17:48, 24 April 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.

Go away, Ichträgtkeineschuhe.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]