|
This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are
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 sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bishonen |
talk 18:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC) |
Chestmas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is zero actual evidence that I have made any edits that any previous Wikipedia editor has ever made. I noticed a major amount of promotional writing on the Vocativ page and attempted to add some improvement banners. I then made efforts on the article's talk page to try and compromise. But no discussion was ever had, and I was simply blocked for filing a 3RR complaint against the person who refused to talk on the talk page with me. How in the world is that worthy of a block? How is discussing on the talkpage and abiding by 3RR worthy of a block? Chestmas (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your contribution history seems completely consistent with the reason given for the block. It is sort of obvious. Chillum 18:21, 2 May 2015 (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.
Chestmas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have done nothing but follow Wikipedia rules to the letter. And saying "it's kind of obvious" ... really? So new editors that can figure out this incredibly simple website with very obvious rules gets blocked? Where is your evidence that there is any link between myself and any editor? Have you even read the Vocativ page for promotionalism? Use checkuser for god's sake. Chestmas ( talk) 18:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There are numerous features of your editing which scream out that you are not a new editor. However, even if we accept your claim that this account is not a sockpuppet, you have been disruptive and unconstructive in other ways, such as maliciously stalking the edits of Intermittentgardener, so unblocking this account would not be beneficial to the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:27, 7 May 2015 (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.
|
This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are
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 sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bishonen |
talk 18:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC) |
Chestmas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is zero actual evidence that I have made any edits that any previous Wikipedia editor has ever made. I noticed a major amount of promotional writing on the Vocativ page and attempted to add some improvement banners. I then made efforts on the article's talk page to try and compromise. But no discussion was ever had, and I was simply blocked for filing a 3RR complaint against the person who refused to talk on the talk page with me. How in the world is that worthy of a block? How is discussing on the talkpage and abiding by 3RR worthy of a block? Chestmas (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your contribution history seems completely consistent with the reason given for the block. It is sort of obvious. Chillum 18:21, 2 May 2015 (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.
Chestmas ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have done nothing but follow Wikipedia rules to the letter. And saying "it's kind of obvious" ... really? So new editors that can figure out this incredibly simple website with very obvious rules gets blocked? Where is your evidence that there is any link between myself and any editor? Have you even read the Vocativ page for promotionalism? Use checkuser for god's sake. Chestmas ( talk) 18:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There are numerous features of your editing which scream out that you are not a new editor. However, even if we accept your claim that this account is not a sockpuppet, you have been disruptive and unconstructive in other ways, such as maliciously stalking the edits of Intermittentgardener, so unblocking this account would not be beneficial to the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:27, 7 May 2015 (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.