User talk:Whh990

Extended content

Unblock Request 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). Whh990 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Nancy has created this problem, I would like to get back to editing normally, how I was on the 26th of November 2010. Whh990 (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: WP:Standard offer has been made to you several times, however it does not work while you continue denying all the problems with your editing and blaming others. Max Semenik (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC) 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. I have done nothing wrong, I make an unrelated and constructive edit to London (which I have the right to do as it is not Nancy's property), then Nancy complains about copyright content, then she appears to give me good advice about using written sources instead of maps, then she moans about me edit warring, then she moans about sock puppetry. I therefore conclude that if it wasn't for Nancy there would not be a problem as I had edited Wikipedia for more than a year and had never had and accusations of sock puppetry and within 2 months of Nancy coming along she accuses me of it. I admit that I have not been perfect in the year and a bit before Nancy came, but I have done nothing to deserve this. I therefore require an immediate unblock (at my main account) as the innocent victim as it's obvious that if I had not been unlucky enough to be followed around by Nancy, this problem would simply not exist. Why is Nancy so interested in me? Things that prove that I am innocent; The edit I made to London had nothing to do with copyright content, disruptive editing, sock puppetry, not using maps as references instead of written text, in fact it was the opposite to not using maps as references. I cannot see how it looked suspicious or unusual, as to why she would have thought she needed to investigate my contributions further. The reasons why she started to review my contributions was not for creating non-notable articles that were only sourced to maps, but the opposite, copy-pasting reliable, independent text sources. Nor did it have anything to do with disruptive editing or sock puppetry. In the over a year before Nancy came along I had only ever been blocked once for creating unreferenced articles, in the period of less that 2 months after Nancy came I was blocked 4 times, 3 of which were by Nancy. I cannot see how User:Groton Wood was a violation of sock puppetry. Also a lot of the accounts in my sock-cat haven’t edited in a way like me, out of those hundreds of accounts, I cannot see 1 that displays behavioural evidence of also being me and being used ilegimately. There are 3 types of socks in my sock-cat that I can see, accounts that do display behaviour like me for example Groton Wood or Nedging, but certainly not being used ilegimately. Then there are accounts that have done nothing other than new page patrol for example Account creater on this or Beenkeep Rold, which is certainly not like me (or being used ilegimately anyway) as I have never done New page patrol. Then there are a lot of accounts that haven’t edited at all for example R55777 or De2223, which again haven’t displayed any behavioural evidence as they haven’t edited. Then there are the Scibaby related accounts which again haven’t displayed any behavioural evidence. I would also like and explanation from her as to why she is so interested in me. As there is no reason why making an edit to a high traffic article should result in years of harassment. Another question for Nancy, if I hadn't edited the London page, or you has just got on with your normal editing, do you think that the Groton Wood account would still have been created on the 13th of January 2011 or do you think it was your harassment and blocks. What I can't understand is why you appeared to want to help me and say "I appreciate that all your edits are being made in absolute good faith and that you are genuinely here for the good of the project" and then you do this, however even if you get involved with someone who is not editing in good faith, you still have no right to be abusive towards them, it is your responsibility as an administrator that you use your privileges fairly (especially with less experienced users). As for your advice, I understand that maps and photos aren’t generally appropriate, as synthesis also is not allowed. I have also learnt how to use co-ordinates. Redirects, templates and categories, I now agree that we shouldn't even have redirects for transport in.., transport for.. or for unlisted houses (we could redirect every pupil to their primary school, even though that would be verifiable, which would violate WP:Notdir) even it a very small settlement, however I would say redirects for non-notable Grade II listed buildings are acceptable (if the building may be notable, then there should be a red link instead of a redirect). As for templates and categories, I think it's acceptable to have templates and categories for civil parishes as long as there are more notable features in them that just the settlements (which would be covered in the district's template/category), however we don't need templates/categories for hamlets as the listed buildings in the hamlet will redirect to the hamlet or a list so they would be redundant. Another note, I got a kitten for creating a good article on a place in Staffordshire (back in July). Whh990 (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC) {{Adminhelp}} Can a note please be left on Nancy's talk page directing here so that she can explain the above. Whh990 (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)  Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Hamish, I don't think I have anything useful to add to what has been said, exhaustively, by me and by others at your primary account's talk. Kind regards, nancy 16:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Should also note that as you have been banned by community consensus[1] it would take more than for me to relent for you to be able to resume editing. Suggest that if you are serious about wishing to contribute constructively your first step should be to contact the arbitration committee by email. nancy 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC) {{Adminhelp}} Can I appeal my ban (maby on WP:ANI per Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Banned users) please as I would like to get back to editing normally. Whh990 (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC) You may make an unblock request from your main account. I doubt it will be approved, but you are free to do so. Since your talk page access there has been revoked, you'll have to file a request by email to the Ban Appeals Subcomittee of Arbcom, which you can do by reading the instructions at WP:BASC. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Furthermore, since your ability to use your main account's talk page has been revoked, I see no reason for you to have access to this one, and am revoking it as well. You know what you have to do to be unblocked, and socking isn't it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom unblock appeal

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the user's appeal and has declined to unblock at this time. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.

For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)