You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Gwernol23:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never actually meant to vandalize WP:AIV. What I meant to do was list User:Wikipedia = ☭ on that page, and for some really strange reason it ended up listing User:Example User. I self-reverted that edit. Also, I listed those sockpuppets because they are indeed sockpuppets of the recently banished User:NicAgent - they should be flagged as suspected, not confirmed, though. The reason that I know they are sockpuppets is due to the fact that I am actually friends with that person from home and he just recently told me all of the sockpuppets he was using.
I've unblocked you given the above explanation. Please exercise more care in your use of templates and do not simply replace the sockpuppet notices. While it may be true that these user's are sockpuppets of NicAgent, the word of a friend of yours is not verifiable so we can't use it as evidence of sockpuppetry. Thanks for understanding, Gwernol20:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|Just one edit that was wrong - come on and at least make the block temporary}}
I am giving you one last chance. Be gracious I am doing so, as this normally does not happen and especially considering this is your second block to be reversed. The block willl expire in twelve hours. If you at all, do any vandalism, disurption, or any realted unconstructive edits, you will be shown the door. Please watch yourself. --Pilotguy(roger that)18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. -- KOS | talk15:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I believe that this warnings were erroneous in nature, as I don't see any instance of vandalism around the time period of these warnings in this user's contribution history. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!04:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked your account, as I believe that KOS mistook some of your edits for vandalism. However, for the time being, it would be wise to stay away from any association with vandals at all — even inserting warning templates. As you mentioned, you've made plenty of good edits; if you continue to do so, you'll clear any doubt that your account will be used for vandalism in the future. Feel free to contact me if you need assistance. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!04:11, 10 August 2006 (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).
pgk, you are only looking at the negative side of this. This account as well as User:How dare you? and User:NicAgent have made some very good contributions and you refuse to take those edits into account of this matter.
Decline reason:
You have dozens of abusive sock puppets used for personal attacks and vandalism. You started inserting your own vandalism into long term abuse pages. Your damage far exceeds any minor good you did. Even when indefintely blocked as User:NicAgent you carried on with the behaviour which got that blocked.
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.
