60.229.16.214

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).

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

---

Request reason:

why am I being blocked?

Decline reason:

This IP address was blocked because an administrator believes it is being used for block evasion by user Sfacets (block log). The block is set to expire one week from now. — Satori Son 15:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

Because you have been evading a block; according to your block log. User:Agent008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Ok, this is simply not true, could I be unblocked please?

Decline reason:

We need more of a reason than that. And please, don't beg. — Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What other reason do you need? I am obviously not evading any block, since here I am, requesting to be unblocked - check the IP addresses if you do not believe that I am telling the truth.

Decline reason:

Per comment below. Let the block expire, and then pick one account and stick to it. You have now exhausted your quota of three unblock requests, so I'm protecting the talk page for the remainder of the block. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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 blocked this account as a sock of Sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His second edit made use of the {{fact}} tag.[1] That indicates to me that he is not a new user. The IP geolocates to the same city as Sfacets and his many previous IP socks. And his edits were mostly to the two articles of greatest interest to Sfacets, Nirmala Srivastava and Sahaja Yoga. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---