User talk:U94fifo

Welcome!

Hello, U94fifo, 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 10:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for coordinated single purpose disruptive editing/abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Mfield (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2009 (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).

U94fifo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been using this account and only this account. I've contributed sourced issues to the arctitle: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Debate_on_traditional_and_simplified_Chinese_characters&diff=276065521&oldid=276064198, etc. While Benjwong has been trying evertything to stop other editors to challege the UNSOURCED issuses: "Pro-Traditional characters" part of Literacy, etc. So tell me who's the vandalizer?

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that attack others are never granted. Sandstein 18:30, 10 March 2009 (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.

Care to explain why you look to be editing via open proxies? Or why Anitagfie (talk · contribs) was also using one of them to participate at the same article? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2009 (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).

U94fifo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I really hate to use the unblock template, for it's easy to cause accusation of "abusing unblock template". But that's the only way I got to defend myself: 1. A lot of mainland chinese use the freegate proxy to get through the gov's firewall censor, not just me. 2. It's much faster using that proxy than direct connection to wikipedia. 3. On the recent National People's Congress (NPC) and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) event, a representative raised the sim-tra dispute, that's why this article became popular again.U94fifo (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence submitted to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pangear is convincing. Sandstein 18:32, 10 March 2009 (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.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pangear for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Mfield (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2009 (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).

U94fifo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Last apeal: I wish the wiki admins notice: 1.dissidents are accustomed to use secure proxies to avoid communist gov's firewall censorship. 2.The discussion Pangear(talk) did before 3.Atitarev(talk)'s neutrality questioning at 10:15, 23 February 2009. 4.That's a hot topic recently. -U94fifo (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Regardless of your explanation of the use of proxies, the fact that this account and several others did substantially the same edits in a very short time period makes it clear that they are being operated by the same person, or as part of a group of people coordinating their edits so closely that they are indistinguishable from a single person. See WP:DUCK. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:41, 11 March 2009 (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.