User talk:Mick Danielson

October 2020

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:16, 24 October 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock-puppet, I am not here to violate Wikipedia policy. On what grounds are you making that accusation? Mick Danielson (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obvious case of sockpuppetry. Clearly meets patterns of long term abuse. only (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

It's not obvious to me. But if you think Wikipedia has the right to ban people without even telling them what they have supposedly done, so be it. I know Californian law does say you can ban people for "any reason", including "no reason at all", so in that respect, I am not sure why you even bother with the farce of pretending there has to be a reason, much less any pretext of there being a means to appeal. The smartest Wikipedia Administrators have presumably simply been operating on that basis for years, without telling their colleagues. But if you are going to allow me to appeal, then have the decency to allow it, and step one is telling me on what grounds you suspect me of sock-puppetry. Help me to understand you. Mick Danielson (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It should be obvious to you, as you've operated, among others, all these accounts. +CU -TPA. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:15, 24 October 2020 (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.