Taking-Polandball-to-GA ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not sure why I have been blocked. I was about to place "I am declaring this account is a legitimate sock account. Given the animosity surrounding the Polandball article, it is for the best that I use this sock account to take it to good article status. My doing so under my normal account may create issues with some within my social circles (Wikipedians)." on my user page when I was blocked. As this is a legitimate use of an alternative account, I am requesting that I be unblocked to enable article improvement work to be done for the Good Article review Taking-Polandball-to-GA ( talk) 20:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I agree with Salvio that you should send an email from your real account. If you want, you can send the email to me instead of Salvio. I'll only reveal the fact that your account is in good standing, not its identity. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 01:48, 9 November 2014 (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've never been the cause of an account creation before, even indirectly (so far as I know). Here is a timeline of events in the day that just ended:
Taking-Polandball-to-GA ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This block is not grounded in any policy. WP:SOCK#LEGIT does not require an editor to out their account when the reason for the creation of the legitimate sock is based upon that policy. Regardless of the reasons for the creation of this account, the block is not policy based; the creation of this account, however, is. If others think an editor is not in good standing, which I am, then the correct course of action is to file an WP:SPI. Taking-Polandball-to-GA ( talk) 04:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I suggest you email ArbCom, and advise them of your original account.
Also, stop wikilawyering; if you're experienced enough to know about
WP:SPI, you presumably understand there is a policy called
WP:IAR.
PhilKnight (
talk)
14:49, 9 November 2014 (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.
Salvidrim! please note that I was not advised of the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russavia#09_November_2014. You may wish to peruse the above discussion.
I have no objection to CU being run when disruption is occurring. On this occasion, I do object as there is no evidence of disruption; only a declared legitimate sock and an obvious intention to work on an article that I do not wish to use my account for obvious reasons. Running a CU will also reveal my account, which goes against Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT.
I would also ask you to unblock this account. As an admin I would do it myself but I am not in a position to do so as it would be wrong. Taking-Polandball-to-GA ( talk) 05:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Taking-Polandball-to-GA ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not sure why I have been blocked. I was about to place "I am declaring this account is a legitimate sock account. Given the animosity surrounding the Polandball article, it is for the best that I use this sock account to take it to good article status. My doing so under my normal account may create issues with some within my social circles (Wikipedians)." on my user page when I was blocked. As this is a legitimate use of an alternative account, I am requesting that I be unblocked to enable article improvement work to be done for the Good Article review Taking-Polandball-to-GA ( talk) 20:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I agree with Salvio that you should send an email from your real account. If you want, you can send the email to me instead of Salvio. I'll only reveal the fact that your account is in good standing, not its identity. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 01:48, 9 November 2014 (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've never been the cause of an account creation before, even indirectly (so far as I know). Here is a timeline of events in the day that just ended:
Taking-Polandball-to-GA ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This block is not grounded in any policy. WP:SOCK#LEGIT does not require an editor to out their account when the reason for the creation of the legitimate sock is based upon that policy. Regardless of the reasons for the creation of this account, the block is not policy based; the creation of this account, however, is. If others think an editor is not in good standing, which I am, then the correct course of action is to file an WP:SPI. Taking-Polandball-to-GA ( talk) 04:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I suggest you email ArbCom, and advise them of your original account.
Also, stop wikilawyering; if you're experienced enough to know about
WP:SPI, you presumably understand there is a policy called
WP:IAR.
PhilKnight (
talk)
14:49, 9 November 2014 (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.
Salvidrim! please note that I was not advised of the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russavia#09_November_2014. You may wish to peruse the above discussion.
I have no objection to CU being run when disruption is occurring. On this occasion, I do object as there is no evidence of disruption; only a declared legitimate sock and an obvious intention to work on an article that I do not wish to use my account for obvious reasons. Running a CU will also reveal my account, which goes against Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT.
I would also ask you to unblock this account. As an admin I would do it myself but I am not in a position to do so as it would be wrong. Taking-Polandball-to-GA ( talk) 05:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)