User talk:Weekeepeediaisthetruth1

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2012 (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).

Weekeepeediaisthetruth1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The following conversation happened within user JamesBWatson's talk page. Dear, Mr. JamesBWatson Read on the following texts. to quote you: "Since you have used an unblock request to commit yet more infantile vandalism, your talk page access will be removed to stop you wasting still more of our time. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)" the above was your respond to this: "Request reason: your reason here where is the reason!???????Weekeepeediaisthetruth (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: A very good point... Peridon (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)" I'd like to ask this question: Where in the "Request reason" section did username Weekeepeediaisthetruth asserted that the use on unblock request was to "commit yet more infantile vandalism"? Clearly, the section only revolved around the inquiry of a location and lack any intention towards your assessment. How did you arrive with your conclusion that the said username has committed to add more infantile vandalism? Sincerely yours, Weekeepeediaisthetruth1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weekeepeediaisthetruth1 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC) To make an unblock request, giving "where is the reason!???????" in the place where there should be a reason for the request, is vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC) I would like to request an unblock. User JamesBWatson is harassing me with an accusation of being "committing more infantile vandalism". He is using his administrative powers to enforce his own policy regarding harassment in Wikipedia. Further, I'd like to know how make a complain for the said user. He being an administrator does no exclude him of being polite to others regardless of his personal feelings. To further support my request, I point to a text within http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." User JamesBWatton claimed the user Weekeepeediaisthetruth as being "infantile" and "committed" to further vandalism which I have posted within the former's talk page. I cite this event as being unrelated to my original action of inquiry to his harmful remarks. I am deeply concerned about his use of administrator privileges. Weekeepeediaisthetruth1 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blatant sock account - Talk page access revoked. If you wish to request unblock, contact WP:BASC from your original account -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:28, 8 January 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.

To help any administrator who tries to assess this rather incoherent unblock request, I will give a little background. As you can see from Special:Contributions/Weekeepeediaisthetruth, the account Weekeepeediaisthetruth was a vandalism only account, and was indefinitely blocked by Alexf. The user then proceeded to make an unblock request, in which, in the place labelled "Your reason here", instead of giving a reason for unblocking, wrote "your reason here where is the reason!???????". For a more moderate example of a blocked vandal I would have declined the unblock request, suggesting that any further request be more serious in character. However, for someone whose editing had been such extreme vandalism, and who then proceeded with what looked to me like a frivolous unblock request, I thought there was no point in letting the vandal waste yet more of our time, so I declines and revoked talk page access. The user then created this sockpuppet account, so I blocked it. If you wish to give the user a second chance that is fine: I won't quarrel with you. However, my own feeling is that on present showing there is no reason to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]