Contents

User talk:Alternate user name

Blocked as a sockpuppet You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppetofBadBabysitter (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK much? You can edit your user talk page while blocked to try and resolve your concerns. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:32, 28 October 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for the assistance. I did not know the correct procedure for appealing a block. The Sock guidelines clearly state that privacy is a legitimate use of multiple screen names. If you check, you will see that I never use alternative screen names to abuse other people, only to avoid being abused.

Decline reason:

The sock guidelines do state this, but also strongly suggest that if you have this issue you should let the Arbitration Committee know. So, I can't unblock on those grounds just with what we've got here. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2010 (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.

Alternate user name (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

The guidelines state: Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or member of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Obviously, I did not violate this guideline.

Decline reason:

But your editing did attract scrutiny. And now it's a little too late for me to unblock you just because you say this. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2010 (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.

Alternate user name (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear you are lying. The admin who blocked me posted the real reason for the block on one of the notice boards. I am very skilled at dealing with bigots like you. Playing by your rules is not the way. Alternate user name (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real reason was you were obviously using this account to try and garner support for a blocked one: certainly a violation of the sock policy. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]