User talk:KSEVWatch

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, KSEVWatch! I am WereSpielChequers and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

Ϣere SpielChequers 07:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is an illegitimate block intended to stop me from protesting the harassment and stalking behavior I am receiving from the edit warrior Elyzium23 who is stalking and harassing editors about content on the Least I Could Do and The Dating Guy articles.

Decline reason:

You're blocked for disruptive editing at WP:AIV; you'll need to address that if you want to be unblocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:09, 31 August 2011 (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.

The same editor who blocked me has also removed my protest of Elyzium's behavior: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Dating_Guy&action=historysubmit&diff=447705267&oldid=447704352

First of all, watch who you're talking about, as I am not who blocked you. But the content you placed there does not belong on that talk page. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

No I am not! The message that came up when I tried to edit is that it is for "making personal attacks" which is nonsense. I reported him after he started trying to harass me. Meanwhile he has not been blocked for making his personal attacks and for filing false reports.

Decline reason:

Yes. You are. Please address the disruptive editing pattern at AIV. Address your own behavior, not that of others. Kuru (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2011 (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.

Yes, I blocked you for disruptive editing and edit warring on WP:AIV. I was interrupted before I could post the block notice. Toddst1 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further personal attacks will result in the removal of your ability to edit this page. Kuru (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you felt that the original report was in error, you should have left the report and either posted a brief explanation on AIV or perhaps a longer explanation on your talk page. If your editing was not vandalism, then any admin who looked at it would have dismissed the report. As it was, I looked at it and saw you disrupting AIV and making vengeful counter reports. Toddst1 (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have lost the privilege of editing this page while blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Elizium

If you have the time and ever return, I have filed a report on Elizium over at WP:ANI and I would encourage you to drop by and supply diffs about his behavior. Wikipedia editors and admins are not supposed to engage in the sort of deliberate provocation and attack behavior that can be seen in how you were treated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.109.127.141 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

help please

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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2011 (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.

I am not a sockpuppet. I was not even logged in for the past day. I took the advice of people after the last and took some time off. what can I do to prove my innocence? I cannot even respond to the nonsense I am being accused of from how I am seeing things now.

It appears you previously edited under the account User:FaheyUSMC. Care to comment? --Jayron32 05:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I DID NOT. How can I prove this? This claim is complete bullshit!

{{helpme}}

I do not understand this. The pasted template crap above is meaningless to my situation. I have been falsely accused of being someone else and I am not that person nor a "sockpuppet." How do I clear my name? What proof do I have to provide? what am I supposed to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSEVWatch (talk • contribs) 08:59, 3 September 2011

You have been suspended from Wikipedia indefinitely because an investigation showed that you have used other accounts for wrongdoing, I would suggest occupying your time with something else. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As, it seems unlikely, that an unblock request will succeed, you have 3 choices.

Give up editing here.
Read up WP:OFFER, don't sock for 6 months, ideally edit elsewhere, and then ask again.
Appeal the block - see Wikipedia:APPEAL#Appeal_to_the_Arbitration_Committee

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]