User talk:Calpolylolli

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet.

Decline reason:

Because sockpuppets always say that, we have to believe checkuser results. Do you remember what I told you on your other account? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:41, 5 December 2012 (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.

Checkuser results of Likely or Confirmed cannot be contested via unblock, both because the evidence is damning and because most admins don't have access to Checkuser records. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just take off the block. I don't want to make another account--Calpolylolli (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are in violation of the standard offer which you agreed to approximately 24 hours ago here. 72Dino (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppets of this user have been repeatedly warned (1, 2, 3) not to abuse the unblock request process, yet continues to do so.-- Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 22:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calpolylolli's confirmed sockpuppet (User:Pablo.morales.la.bomba) was just blocked from editing his own talk page for violating the request form. Something to consider if his Calpolylolli account continues doing so. -- Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 01:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]