User talk:Christian07dalek

This account is a sockpuppet of France a (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

un block please, misunderstanding!!!

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).

Christian07dalek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i fail to see the reason behind this, below is the letter that i have recieved from mango juice because i appear to be some one i am not, i have read it and i am assuming good faith, i do not see why this block is fair, PLEASE READ THIS THROUGH BEFORE COMMENTING AS THE LAST TIME I TRIED I GOT AN ANNOYING UNTRUE STATEMENT!!! "We are sorry that you find yourself permanently blocked as a sockpuppet of someone you claim to have no connection to. While we can never be absolutely sure that this account and the other account are being operated by the same person, we can be sure enough to issue blocks. There is plenty of evidence to suggest a firm link in your case, and of course, for every one user who is incorrectly blocked as a sockpuppet, there are dozens of instances of a true sockpuppet claiming not to be one. (Think about it: what do they have to lose?)

So, in the end only you know the truth as to whether you are in fact a sockpuppet. Therefore, let us give the following advice.

If you are a sockpuppet, please stop wasting our time and find something else to do. Yes, it's very annoying. Now, move on.

If you are really not a sockpuppet, forget about "clearing your name" or getting this block reversed, it's extremely unlikely to happen. Instead, just register a new account in 24 hours and start using that one if you want to edit. It's possible you accidentally stumbled into the edit pattern of a banned user, and you may or may not have been making bad edits. However, just to be on the safe side, you might want to read up on the basics of Wikipedia before you start editing again.

Thanks,

The management."

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Mangojuice/A_letter_to_sockpuppets"

Decline reason:

Your request is too long, confusing and aggressive. See User:Sandstein/Unblock and try again. — Sandstein (talk) 18:55, 9 December 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.

HAVE YOU READ THIS THROUGH???--Christian07dalek (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also, i found this whilst looking through a sockpuppetry page on wikipedia

If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean and honest new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner.

If you start under a new name, you should be aware that the new account will be noticed:

If you continue editing the same articles, or your writing style is so distinctive that it will quickly be noticed, then it is likely a connection will be made, and the perceived concealment may only cause it to be seen negatively when discovered. (If you change your behavior, and the articles you work on, there is no reason for a connection to be made between the two accounts.) If identified by checkuser or accused of being a sockpuppet later on: Checkuser is only used when there is a suspected breach of policy. If you don't use the old account, there is no reason a request would be made. View this clean start under a new name as a courtesy extended to you; do not abuse this courtesy by engaging in disruptive behavior again or to mislead others.

also found on the same page... In some cases it may not be completely clear whether an account is a sock puppet, as the purpose is usually to avoid detection. Similarities in interests and editing style can be noted, but not everyone may be familiar enough with the user to understand the evidence. Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about politics, religion, or articles for deletion.

If you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, do not take it too personally. New users are unknown quantities. Stay around a while and make good edits, and your record will speak for itself. That generally is the only real way to prove that you are not anyone's puppet; even CheckUser cannot give anything beyond a negative confirmation

--Christian07dalek (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please note i may not be availiable to edit from now until at the earliest the 15th, possibly nt till 2008, so please do NOT do what you did with my RfA on my previous account, and i shall see you the next time, please revoew my unblock request carefully or i will end up taking this to the arbitration comitee, see ya!--Christian07dalek (talk) 18:42, 9 December 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).

Christian07dalek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

why, i have found sufficient evidence for me to be unblocked, and no one is noticing! my block is unfair because of the above reasons, they have been disobeyed, and i am suffering, please read this properly this tim or else i will get very annoyed

Decline reason:

I have read both your previous unblock request and your userpage. You state that you are a previously blocked user who is planning to create a new user account to edit with, consistent with one user's essay in his own userspace. You also state, on your userpage, that your intention is to continue editing in the same way that you did on your previous account. If your intention is to continue editing in the way that got you blocked, then an unblock would not be useful at this time, in my opinion. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:29, 11 December 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.

no, that isn't how it works, i was blocked on a previous account for seeing that someone elses block was unfair, and trying to do something against it, i then got blocked for being that person and recieved the letter described above, i followed it and have now been blocked AGAIN for the same, untrue thing, where is the fairness in that??? --Christian07dalek (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your userpage: "i have had a previous account but got blocked for sockpuppetry, i have come back after findingthisand i will continue to edit wikipedia the careful way that i was doing before porcupine blocked me." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block you, anyway. I'm not an admin.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

porcupine, in affect, you put a request in for me to be blocked, and it got carried out, fisher queen, try looking at what was typed in the user page, it was a link to the letter which is copied above, i have been blocked unfairly and will get extremely annoyed if this carries on, i joined to make wikipedia better, and i can't because i am blocked for absolutely no reason--Christian07dalek (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i was editing well, found a glicth in someones block and decided to try and put it right, so i would be editing in a good way, but i only seem to be able to edit this page--Christian07dalek (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

considering everything, i am now on this account and please make sure you find a PROPER REASON if you are going to block me --People keep blocking me and i find it unfair (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected this page as well, so that we can just have one of this user's accounts appealing. Having three or four accounts appealing the block at once is confusing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]