User talk:Mantracat

User Talk Page for Mantra Cat

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).

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

Request reason:

This User was blocked as a sock puppet of Lawline. However, Lawline should have never been blocked in the first place and Lawline which was blocked in 2011 should be unblocked. The real story about User:Lawline is that an Administrator was making edits to an article written by Lawline. The Administrator had no knowledge of the subject area but engaged in cyber bullying against Lawline to get her way. Lawline indicated that he disagreed with some of her edits. Lawline also advised the Administrator that some of her edits could be viewed as libelous under New York law. However, Lawline NEVER threatened to sue and always respected the rights of Wikipedia and the Administrator. The Administrator then turned things around and claimed that Lawline threatened to sue Wikipedia which was not the case. The Administrator did this as a ploy to block and ban Lawline so she could could get Lawline out of the way and edit the Article the way she wanted to. Following the banning of Lawline, every User that in any way was associated with or supportive of Lawline was blocked and banned as a "sock puppet" of Lawline. Included in the "sock puppet" list was User:LuckyDan89 who was a college student who had been a Wikipedia user for over 5 years, and who was banned for making one small edit on a Lawline article.

This User has never abused any accounts, has never vandalized any articles, and intends to continue as a productive member of the Wikipedia Community.Mantracat (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have posted this exact same request elsewhere, and my answer is the same. You must address the issue of your sockpuppetry, which this request fails to do. And posting the same comment at multiple sock accounts is not going to help your case.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:31, 13 January 2014 (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 comment applies to all so called "sock puppet" accounts because they all arise from an initial unfair blocking of the Lawline account. The "sock puppet" accounts were necessary for me (and my affiliates) to preserve our right of freedom of expression. In Form 990 filed with the Internal Revenue Service as a not-for-profit organization, the Wikipedia Foundation claims that the Wiki sites are a collaborative effort for all to write and edit. Wikipedia has unfairly excluded Lawline and affiliates through its unfair, discriminatory and capricious policies. However, the bigger picture is that Wikipedia is on the path of self-destruction. For someone like you who has been an Administrator for years, you were able to go through a learning curve as new developments arose. For someone coming in new, even an intelligent person, the rules and bureaucracy is complex and unmanageable. I have read all the Articles about the Decline of Wikipedia and how there are fewer new Editors and Administrators each year and I can see why. Mantracat (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]