User talk:Appealplease

Welcome!

Hello, Appealplease, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

By your edits, it is clear that this account is a sock account, so I have blocked it indefinitely. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:04, 26 October 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

please send a message to Ryan Postlewaite, not unblock. To Ryan, how do we resolve this problem. I think there needs to be discussion. But if I use my main account, it will be blocked forever just like this one. See, I asked for discussion and wanted a 72 hour block so that I could leave the discussion. The problem is that Derek is being used as an excuse to block everyone who doesn't want any discussion. Look at Greenwinged. There are several reasons pointing that he is not Polounit. If so, one of them is not Derek. Although I do not vandalise, I think admins are worsening, not helping the vandalism problem, because they block to prevent discussion. For every block like this, maybe 50 socks come out. Solve the discussion and no socks result. That's human nature.

Decline reason:

You can discuss it on this very page. So far I don't see a single reason to unblock. MaxSem 20:28, 26 October 2007 (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.

If you truly are not Dereks1x, I would suggest you check out Dmcdevit's edit to the Greenwinged checkuser in which Dmcdevit confirmed Greenwinged and Polounit as Dereksix socks.[1] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on what your main account is? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment:
I recommend unblock because Ryan is asking a question and if he wants an answer, he should show good faith by not having an indef block. Maybe 24 hours is ok. NKCanada 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any abusive sock puppet is block indefinately, so 24 hours is not an option. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view: - Concur with current handling. An indef block (see WP:INDEF) is a block that prevents editing whilst a matter is being discussed or resolved. Logically therefore an indef block (other than a ban) where a question was not being asked, would be unusual.....

An indef block also does not preclude good-faith discussion. Whether there is an unblock before discussion, or after resolution, is up to those concerned. It depends greatly upon the concerns being discussed. Where abusive conduct is suspected though, it's quite common to maintain a block until a resolution is agreed. In particular, where puppetry is involved, abusive socks are pretty much automatically blocked. This does not preclude discussion..... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]