User talk:Vividlucidity

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).

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

Request reason:

There was no investigation whatsoever of this allegation, just a gutshot indef. ban by an admin with an agenda. How about at least ATTEMPTING to follow established policies.

Decline reason:

Looks pretty cut and dry to me. You are not only a sockpuppet, you didn't even try to cover that fact up. I also find it hilarious that you are accusing someone else of having an agenda when your edit history quite clearly illustrates your own. — Trusilver 00:12, 4 February 2009 (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.

Just a question. Can you explain why every one of your contribs, with the exception of the unblock request, are to a deletion request of an article that was deleted almost two years ago?—Sandahl (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it matter? The first AfD came out as keep, the second AfD resulted in all parties that supported it being indef. banned by an admin who has since had his powers revoked and was shown the door for extreme heavy-handedness. I'm just saying, should of Jimbo Wales coming in, what exactly can anyone say to even get consideration, much less not being banned? It's a DRV and that's all it took for me to be banned for life. That's the history of anyone who touches this issue. Vividlucidity (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Again, no investigation... did you even BOTHER to do an IP check, anything? Anyone who has ever fallen on this side of the issue is immediately banned no matter what. Wikipedia has a process for a reason, it ought not to be cavalierly done away with

Decline reason:

As stated at WP:GAB, many admins consider a request for Checkuser in an unblock request to prove innocence to be pretty much a admission of guilt (and in any event, as that page and WP:RFCU pretty clearly state, such checkusers are done so infrequently as to make it not worth the time to ask. And it can't really prove innocence, can it?). In any event, bona fide new users do not march right off to DRV and initiate a request from the perennial requests file. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2009 (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.