You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for on the basis of your editing pattern it appears that you are another sock puppet of Gloriousrevolution (talk · contribs). I note in particularly that you've continued the dispute started by the Gloriousrevolution sock 138.130.71.248 (talk · contribs) (eg, they added this, kept re-adding it when concerns were raised, and stated that the matter should go to mediation [1]. You've re-added this material (complete with the reference to a letter in an obscure magazine), referred to seeking a third opinion as 'starting the mediation process' [2] and went on to start a mediation request [3]. I note also that in arguing for this material on the talk page you have demonstrated a focus on including the views of Indigenous Australians as presented by the Australian National Flag Association, which is also characteristic of other Gloriousrevolution socks.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here David Byers1770 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC) :Please stop removing this block notice. Your having done so will be noticed by the reviewing admin as part of the checks they conduct when reviewing this block. If it continues you may also have your ability to edit this page removed. Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC) I don't know why that has happened. I want another editor to review this decision. You can't just ban people because a third opinion they request vindicates them and not you. I'm an expert on this subject. Wikipedia needs me. David Byers1770 (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
David Byers1770 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Since creating my account I've done nothing to violate wikipedia's rules. A potential edit war was diverted into the dispute resolution process. You can't ban me just because the third opinion that was sought said that I know what I'm talking about and you don't. David Byers1770 (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC) I don't think it's so appropriate that a block imposed by a editor who was on the wrong side of a third opinion requested by the user he blocked is reviewed by the same editor. I've emailed an unblock request to wikipedia. Allow me to suggest a compromise. Given the doubt, why just give me back my edit privilages and let me continue with the mediation process and let me state my case, proceedings in which I look like coming out on top? And in the future if I show no repect for wikipedia's rules the block can be easily re-imposed. In suggesting this course of action I point to the substantial contribution I have made to the article on the Australian Flag Debate; indeed, what would it be without me? As is plain to see I'm an expert on this subject with a huge library of flag related resources - wikipedia needs me. I'm just the person you are looking for. David Byers1770 (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Two issues. One, you have not given a definitive answer to the accusations of sockpuppetry, which incidentally I find convincing based on behavioral evidence as an admin with no interactions with you and very minimal interactions with Nick-D. Secondly, please read over WP:NOTTHEM and get back to us. Accusing the blocking admin of ulterior motives without very good evidence (of which you have none) will get you nowhere, and will rather quickly result in your access to this page being disabled. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:46, 10 December 2011 (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.
David Byers1770 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't remember ever using the handle Glorious Revolution. But I was diagnosed with Manic Affective Disorder this year. It had been coming to a head for some time. There's a lot about the last year to 18 months I don't recall: that's hypermania. But I'm on the right medication now thank goodness. Regarding Nick-D, it seems personal to me. You only have to look at the talk page to the article Australian flag debate to see that he or she took the side of the editor in relation to which I asked for a third opinion, and that the editor who gave the third opinion sided with me. When it does go to binding arbritration, if I don't prevail yet seek to add the content back to the article it can be quite simple: reverse the edit and put me on block again. It's interesting, if there is not to be one rule for me and one rule for everyone else, aren't you obliged to reverse all the improvements I have made to the articles I have edited? That this hasn't been done shows my worth to this project alone. David Byers1770 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If your health is such a problem that you're unable to remember your activities on this site from less than a year ago - and, if the edits from the IP address are anything to go by, just last week - then you need to take care of those health concerns first and make sure you are completely stable before attempting to edit this site. Wikipedia is not therapy and we do not need to deal with disruption caused as a result of you adjusting to psychological medications, which I understand take some long time to acclimate to. In any event, none of this convinces me unblocking you would be a good idea anyway. Blocks are preventative - unblocking you until you cause trouble completely defeats the purpose of them. Hersfold (t/a/c)05:17, 11 December 2011 (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.
{{unblock reason=I feel quite well now and ready to participate. My most recent edits have been constructive. The one involving indigenous australians needs to go to binding arbritration, it's always a touchy subject. But if that is your decision that's fine. All wikipedia has to do now is reverse all my edits from this account and any IP addresses I was using before I bothered to sign up. Looking at the account Glorious Revolution I believe that's the policy followed in that instance. Just take it all down. The dream that was wikipedia is fuck all.
{{unblock reason=You will have massive copyright problems with my work - all of it - just take every scrap down. That's my advice to you. Save Jimbo Wales.}}
{{unblock I can still view articles. The Flag of Australia entry is massive plagarism. It almost needs to come down.}}
{{unblock The Australian Flag Debate entry needs to be butchered.}}
David Byers1770 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
How tolerant must the Australian Flag Society people be? You take their words and twist them.
Decline reason:
You have made a series of unblock requests that not only do not address the reasons for your block, but are incomprehensible, and one of them appears to be a threat. I do not think that allowing you further access to this talk page will be helpful. Wikipedia is not the right place for you; please confine yourself to reading, and do not try to edit any longer. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:32, 11 December 2011 (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.