User talk:Renamed user 9

you

Trolling IP comment removed Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:41, 29 March 2008 (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).

Renamed user 9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please read here is some evidence that I have not been underhand... (Admins, check history to read the whole thing)

Decline reason:

Regardless of whether you think you were right or not, abusing multiple accounts in the manner you did is against policy and grounds for a block. A checkuser confirmed that you were doing this in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gregs the baker. This means that your IP addresses conclusively matched those of the other accounts. Your long reasoning addressed no reasons why you would stop this behavior, only justifying your reasoning for doing so, which we are not interested in when considering your unblock. Unless you can demonstrate that you know why what you did was against policy, and that you will not do it again, you are unlikely to be unblocked. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:41, 29 March 2008 (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).

Renamed user 9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Long reasoning removed to condense page by Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

Decline reason:

The request is too long. Be more concise. — Sandstein (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2008 (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).

Renamed user 9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Even longer reasoning removed, again, see history, by Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

Decline reason:

The problem is that you were deliberately abusing these other accounts in order to make a WP:POINT. It's really not necessary to demonstrate to disruptive people how they're being disruptive by being disruptive yourself; this just makes matters worse. You had a previous block for edit warring, and your comments don't seem to indicate that you've learned from that block. Now, if you would like to request another unblock after this one, PLEASE make it SHORT, as you've already been told. If your reasoning is too long, as all three of your requests so far have been, we may very well skip reading it and just decline it straight off, as Sandstein did above. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:21, 31 March 2008 (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.

To admin here is your smaller unblock appeal like admin requested:

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).

Renamed user 9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here is my appeal in brief like what was requested. I am a good wiki user bar one mistake my history proves it, I strongly regret my mistakes that began by demonstrating, going against WP:Point. I respect the input of others who are also responsible and do not sock. I'm 'strongly' against any type of socking. I once made a human mistake, in openly demonstrating and trying to teach by irony I fought fire with fire, and hence became disruptive at a disruptive sock doing no one any favors; I've learned from this mistake and informed myself more on aspects of wiki e.g. WP:Point I can now see this demonstartion that also grew out of control over the AFD deletion egg timer was abuse. I have a lot to offer the wiki project. And I believe I should have the human freedom to edit this wiki project unrestricted to add to the project like every other person who assumes good faith like I do. I apologise. It wont happen again.

Decline reason:

No, your a sockpuppetmaster, take it to "arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org" for appeal. Your page will be protected to prevent abuse of the unblock template. — MBisanz ^talk 04:46, 2 April 2008 (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.

Some IP has been screwing with this talk page, removing or answering the unblock template. I've blocked him. --Golbez (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At this point I recuse myself from further reviews of your block, having dealt with two already. You'll need to wait for another admin to deal with it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I am in receipt of your emails. I am reviewing the situation and will post results here in 24 hours. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

At this time I've examined the issue further and believe there were multiple instances of sockpuppeting and that the block was the correct decision. That said, you are perfectly free to appeal to Arbcom at the email listed above or to the unblocking mailing list at "unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org". MBisanz ^talk 15:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed the RTV request at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#RTV_Request. Please consider emailing the same evidence email you sent to me, to the arbcom at the above address, this is exactly the sort of thing they investigate, using tools unavailable to me and other administrators. MBisanz ^talk 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please send Kingturtle (talk · contribs · email) the email you sent me, requesting to have this account renamed to something other than a real life entity name. MBisanz ^talk 07:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page temporarily unprotected. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

confirmed --Gregs the baker (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your still able to EmailUser other users with this account, until its renamed. So thats probably your best option. Or email it to me and I'll ask him if he's interested in it. MBisanz ^talk 07:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]