User talk:EvanSvensson
Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Block
[edit]You have been blocked as a sockpuppet of EastGermanAllStar. It's not hard to tell its you from your e-mails that you sent me of which this was the same e-mail address. You are not welcome here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Unblock Request
[edit]
EvanSvensson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I ask that this block may be reviewed and that I may be unblocked. The blocking user does not have sufficient proof that this account is a sock puppet. Furthermore, telling any one user that they are "not welcome here" reflects incivility.
Decline reason:
That you used the same email as another user is proof that you are a sock. That you told the blocking admin to "Ahh..shut up you idiot" hardly gives you just cause to cry foul of incivility. Furthermore, your contributions would have you blocked as a vandal-only account in any case — Steve (Stephen) talk 02:54, 31 May 2007 (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.
EvanSvensson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
See abouve. I did not use the same e-mail, the admin has not supplied any proof of that, going on his word alone goes against the rules. Two, the message was not from me personally, Ryulong was simply shooting the messenger (thus to state that any user is "not welcome" is unwarrented as this encyclopedia does not belong to him) and deciding he wanted to block a user that he simply did not like. And finally, my contributions only consist of tests and serious edits, so I don't see how anyone could see this account to be vandal-only. There is no legitimate reason that this account should not be unblocked, or at the very least, be given a "second chance". I request that good faith be assumed, something not exercised by the admin in question.
Decline reason:
From your contributions and wikilawyering I clearly see that you're here not to write the encyclopedia. MaxSem 05:00, 31 May 2007 (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.
Appeal
[edit]EvanSvensson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
See abouve. The reasons that the blocking of this account are unjustified are as followed: 1. The user has asserted that this user, and my account use the same email address, but has supplied Wikipedia with absolutely no level of observable proof, without such evidence, an admin could very easily use claims such as this to justify the blocking of any user he/she dislikes, whether or not the block is for good cause. 2. The blocking admin established this block largely for punitive reasons; this goes against the guidelines set for blocking in the "blocking policy" page as blocks are meant specifically for protecting the encyclopedia and not punishing a user. His statement "You're not welcome here" (seen abouve) as well as the fact that no article was in any immediate danger (no vandalism edits to my account, only tests) is evidence of this and reflects a lack of understanding of protocol on his part. 3. The blocking admin has resorted to un-civil tactics: using statements implying that he believes he runs Wikipedia himself, and showing a quick willingness to display my private e-mail address without proof of his false accusations. These acts concern me as administrators are expected to hold higher standards than what has been displayed. Again, this at the very best, demonstrates disregard for policy. I ask that at the very least, good faith may be assumed, and that I will at least be given the chance to edit a "source" to demonstrate my intent to contribute productively, thank you.
Decline reason:
This account was used to commit vandalism and got banned. End of story. -- Netsnipe ► 20:14, 31 May 2007 (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.
I have another hundred or so e-mail messages from [redacted] calling me a chickenshit. User:EastGermanAllStar did the same thing (although 200 of them). You are the same person. None of your edits have ever been serious or constructive on any of your five or so accounts that were discovered through checkuser and plain old blatantly obvious evidence.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then Where's the proof??EvanSvensson 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ryulong is a trusted member of the community. You aren't. --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then Where's the proof??EvanSvensson 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)