User talk:Serapis Alexandria

Blocked

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Wiki En Wiki (talk • contribs • block log • creation log). As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

- Caribbean~H.Q. 02:59, 6 November 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).

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

Request reason:

Evaluate the evidence. You will see I have sympathy for the Puerto Rican independence movement. I don’t favour the independence party. I respect the independence party. WikiEnwiki and Hypathya know what they favour but I am not their sockpupet. The evidence shows that I am not a sockpupet. I did edit on topics related to the PR independence movement and one of their parties. That doesn’t make me a sock as CaribeanHO says of Hypathya or Wikienwiki. The evidence implicates that Wikienwiki is a PR independence favourer. The evidence implicates that Hypathya is a supporter of statehood. I prefer not to say what I favour but it is none of those. Evaluate the evidence and see that I am not those people’s sockpupet. I have never been the pupet of other people. I take pride in that. I don’t know the exact rules of the encyclopedia. I want to know this. CaribeanHO was in a “dispute” or had a different opinion we are arguing over right now in the PR disenfranchisement topic. Is it fair that he to block while two persons who are arguing with him in an open debate that is not finished and final. Should another Administrator take that original decision or is it OK for he to do that. I mean, is it fair for he to do that while there is an ongoing dispute with he

Decline reason:

"this is highly Likely [based on checkuser evidence] to be the same user". That'll do it for me. You offer no reason why the checkuser would produce incorrect results, and Lar is a very conservative checkuser (hence 'very likely' is plenty confirmation to block). Daniel 10:07, 8 November 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.

YESS! WE FIGHT EVUL PLUTOCRACY TOGETHER! YOU REQUEST BE GRANTED! I DO!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.218.119 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to hurt Serapis Alexandria? Saying that type of thing is only prone to hurt her. This type of rant will not help her demonstrate the truth.

Supposedly Caribbean H.Q. has a long history of bogus or happy-trigger blocks.

Let the Administrator do his job.

If you do not have any useful information to give forth, there is no necessity to hurt her.

GodspeedMach3 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]