User talk:Studentaccountantghost4

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).

Studentaccountantghost4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please have sympathy for me. I am begging on my knees for you to let me use this account to avoid the block on my other accounts.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. only (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2016 (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).

Studentaccountantghost4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry for vandalizing my talkpage and using multiple accounts. I now understand that in order to contribute to Wikipedia, I need to do it in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I admit to vandalizing my talk page in a fit of anger (which is in no way justified), but I want you to look at my other contributions and realize that I do intend on making Wikipedia a better place. I just need you to give me a second chance to do it. I promise not to continue to use multiple accounts nor vandalize even when I am angry. As a result, I would like to be unblocked or get a reduced block. Studentaccountantghost4 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been socking almost continuously in the last couple of months, both with IPs, and at least one named account. Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2016 (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.

Please, start by telling us what other accounts have you been using and why? Vanjagenije (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using user:haunted331, user:dogs robes, and User:John Armando because at the time, I was trying to create an article Dolvett Quince (personal trainer) after it kept getting deleted. I knew that if I did that all with one account, I would get blocked. That does not justify my use of multiple accounts, and I apologize for that. I had no right to continue recreating an article that had already been deleted. Now, I understand Wikipedia policies, and I am ready to only edit in accordance to Wikipedia policy. Studentaccountantghost4 (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request sounds a lot like the one at User talk:Haunted331 where you said you didn't understand Wikipedia was so strict and you made similar promises and received an unblock that only lasted about two months before you were blocked again.

What is different in 2016 from what you wrote in 2015? What kind of contributions do you want make on the project? Since you've already been given a second chance with one of your other accounts, you really need to offer a reason why you should be unblocked. How will you act if you are unblocked when you get angry again? Because editing on Wikipedia can often involve conflict and we need to know you can respond to it in a constructive manner. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I am at odds with a decision that somebody makes at Wikipedia, my first avenue would be to go to their talk page and politely ask them why there decision was the way it was. I would try my best to civilly come to an agreement. If we are unable to reach an agreement, then my next choice would be to take it to the arbitration committee before tension gets too high. Studentaccountantghost4 (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Studentaccountantghost4. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]