Whymy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There has been a misunderstanding. An admin thought I was a sockpuppet because I have not used this account for several years. Today was the first time I made an edit to a page in almost 8 years, but I have used this account before. The edit I was blocked for was made on an article's talk page, where I was trying to argue the merits of an article edit. There was no vandalism involved; no edit was forced without consensus onto the article itself. Also, legitimate edits in other subjects have been made with this account in the past. This account was not created for a single purpose. Whymy ( talk) 08:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This appears to be a sleeper account resurrected for nefarious purposes. PhilKnight ( talk) 22:36, 29 January 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.
- To the reviewing admin - no, I am not presenting any additional evidence. Classic nondescript 4channers reviving old accounts to dance on Ryulong's grave.
https://boards.4chan.org/m/thread/12027677/so-uh-remember-the-neoheisei-trash-guy-ryulong#p12033337☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC) - Archived link Dave Dial ( talk) 00:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Whymy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was banned and accused of using this account for "nefarious purposes" while trying to make a meaningful contribution to what is an ongoing discussion. I am hoping that cooler heads will prevail and that any reviewing admin will see that I am only trying to contribute in a positive fashion. Whymy ( talk) 22:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't see how repeating two-year-old arguments without any new evidence or argument can be considered a positive contribution. I also consider "resurrected sleeper sock" a likely explanation. Huon ( talk) 14:19, 7 February 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.
Whymy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There has been a misunderstanding. An admin thought I was a sockpuppet because I have not used this account for several years. Today was the first time I made an edit to a page in almost 8 years, but I have used this account before. The edit I was blocked for was made on an article's talk page, where I was trying to argue the merits of an article edit. There was no vandalism involved; no edit was forced without consensus onto the article itself. Also, legitimate edits in other subjects have been made with this account in the past. This account was not created for a single purpose. Whymy ( talk) 08:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This appears to be a sleeper account resurrected for nefarious purposes. PhilKnight ( talk) 22:36, 29 January 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.
- To the reviewing admin - no, I am not presenting any additional evidence. Classic nondescript 4channers reviving old accounts to dance on Ryulong's grave.
https://boards.4chan.org/m/thread/12027677/so-uh-remember-the-neoheisei-trash-guy-ryulong#p12033337☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC) - Archived link Dave Dial ( talk) 00:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Whymy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was banned and accused of using this account for "nefarious purposes" while trying to make a meaningful contribution to what is an ongoing discussion. I am hoping that cooler heads will prevail and that any reviewing admin will see that I am only trying to contribute in a positive fashion. Whymy ( talk) 22:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't see how repeating two-year-old arguments without any new evidence or argument can be considered a positive contribution. I also consider "resurrected sleeper sock" a likely explanation. Huon ( talk) 14:19, 7 February 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.