There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm HaeB. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. HaeB ( talk) 05:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

That article is going to be deleted anyway, since it was obviously written by Wayne (or his Moms.) Supervoter ( talk) 05:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Last warning. Stop with the inane comments and start editing seriously or your next block will be an indefinite one. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:38, 23 February 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am the Supervoter ™. As such, my vote in this unblock discussion is worth as many as 10 regular votes, and I vote to be unblocked. Please see my userpage for more info. Thanks for your understanding. Supervoter ( talk) 05:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

No. Also, indef. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:48, 23 February 2017 (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.

Recommend upping to indef. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

But how many votes is your recommendation worth, exactly? Supervoter ( talk) 05:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

You can not make your comments worth more than other editors by just saying so. Come to think of it you are probably a child per behavioural evidence. J 947 05:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I made some good contributions over at Evangelical atheism AfD, where manifestly ignorant editors were trying to delete an article they plainly didn't even bother to try to understand first. Maybe half of my contributions were good. Isn't that good enough? What, we all have to be perfect here? Supervoter ( talk) 05:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Recommend downing to a week if the users promises to stop with this nonsense '10 times more' thing. J 947 05:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ J947: Why only that nonsense? Should be all nonsense. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Uh, we're not just talking trolling, we're talking BLP trolling [1]. TonyBallioni ( talk) 06:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Supervoter, I was the editor who stuck up for you initially when other users opened an incident report and recommended that you be indefinitely blocked. It's quite disappointing to see you resort to this level of behavior and conduct here. I think that you could honestly be a good contributor and someone who makes a big difference to this community if you really wanted to. I obviously can't convince you to do anything if it's something you clearly don't want to do... but I really do hope that you think about this block, reconsider your actions, and that you decide to join us and stay. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Oshwah and NeilN just as an FYI, the AIV report on the recreation of this account claims that its a sock of another longtime sockmaster [2]. TonyBallioni ( talk) 06:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) Whelp, that sucks. Just had to file this... :-( ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply