FaithfulCompanionCube
Welcome!
edit
|
FaithfulCompanionCube (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not a sockpuppet. Why does everyone who disagrees with this Erigu person get labeled as one and blocked? I've been a member here for months, and I've contributed quite a lot. How can you call me a sockpuppet? And looking at the case page, my defense was ignored, and the Checkuser never happened. That's more than a little sketchy... So, I'm a sock because I happened to disagree with an editor?
Decline reason:
Sorry, but you've been making the exact same edit as a user blocked as a sockpuppet of FragmentsofJade. TNXMan 04:22, 18 October 2009 (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.
FaithfulCompanionCube (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
No offense meant, but that hardly makes someone a sockpuppet. This edit was decided upon on the Wild ARMs series discussion page. But Erigu has forbidden stuff like that to be discussed, so he/she automatically insisted I was a sockpuppet. The series title is "Wild ARMs", so it's a natural edit for anyone who knows the Wiki rules and has played the games. The Wiki rules do state acronyms in titles should be left as-is, right? And one of the publishes has confirmed that title, and one of the official sites even goes as far as to explain the title. How long are people going to get banned as alleged socks for making an edit that should be made. Why does Erigu have the final say in how a title should be for a series he/she's never played, when he/she is not even someone with power here? This was discussed, and "Wild ARMs" was decided on. So, what is the problem?
Decline reason:
We do know that there is one person with a fixation on this silly "Wild ARMs" issue who routinely abuses multiple accounts, so we block all new users behaving in a similar fashion. Sandstein 06:34, 18 October 2009 (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.
FaithfulCompanionCube (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
But that is insane! The way Erigu wants the article is incorrect. Why should everyone who challenges that get banned? I'm not a sockpuppet! It's unfair to accuse me of being one just because I chose to fix the title capitalization while I was doing some other edits to the page. Plus, I've made plenty of other contributions to articles one this site. How can you just ban me so unjustly? Why doesn't someone ban Erigu for messing up the article in the first place? The matter was discussed on the talk page, and there was proper material to back it up, so why is the edit so wrong that everyone who supports it deserves to be banned?
Decline reason:
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.
Blocked as a sock puppet
edit
You may contest this block by adding the text
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first. FaithfulCompanionCube (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I want my unblock request to be reviewed seriously-I'm not a sockpuppet! You have even admitted I was only blocked because you're blocking everyone who makes that edit, even though it's completely legit. And isn't it true that the only reason Erigu ever changed the original edit in the first place, was because of a grudge? I've made a lot of contributions here, and I don't deserve to be blocked just because of one perfectly good edit, that was discussed beforehand and had stuff to back it up.
Decline reason:
Hi, User:Fragments of Jade. You've been doing this for more than a year now, with no success. Now that you know it doesn't work, and is a waste of your precious time, log off. Remove Wikipedia from your bookmarks. Go to school, play outside, enjoy your childhood. When you're an adult, and have learned more about useful research writing and about getting along with other people, Wikipedia will still be here. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:42, 18 October 2009 (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.