HoorayForAmerica

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a sock, I have been cleared by CU.

Decline reason:

CUs do not clear people, it is too easy to use proxies to create the appearance to a CU that no sock puppetry is happening. However a discussion it ongoing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#HoorayForAmerica which will investigate your case. Whatever consensus is reached there will be acted on. HighInBC 01:02, 3 January 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Temporary circumstances unblocks states that I can be unblocked with a limited scope of participation, specifically for things like participating in a discussion about me at ANI. I request to be unblocked with the provision that I will only edit at ANI and my talk page.

Decline reason:

This request is being reviewed. It is a reasonable request and may be accepted. It will depend on what people think there. HighInBC 03:44, 3 January 2016 (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.

Here to build an encyclopedia

When you are blocked, you are not allowed to request that other people edit Wikipedia in your stead. Please wait until the unblock issue has been dealt with. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, but you are mistaken. Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors says "unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." These are perfectly good edits that any reasonable editor might make, anyone who agrees they are reasonable edits can make them for me. Thanks again. HoorayForAmerica (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Being blocked means you cannot edit Wikipedia, this also means asking other to edit for you. This page is for challenging your block only, further misuse may result in loss of talk page access. HighInBC 00:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors is clear that I can ask others to make productive edits for me, and these are productive. I've been told that I can't be unblocked because I have done nothing to contribute to the encyclopedia. Now I am trying to contribute productively to show that I am interested in helping. This is for the purpose of eventually asking to be unblocked. I want to have something productive to point to, next time I ask. Do you see how this is a catch-22? HoorayForAmerica (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to make a bunch of requests every day. I think it would be reasonable for me to compile good edits here and then ask for them to be done in a batch once a day. HoorayForAmerica (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That describes what editors in good standing can do, not blocked editors. I am not going to argue this with you. Being blocked means you may not edit. HighInBC 01:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Doc, that's not the context of what I said. "Bad luck for me. I understand the initial suspicion, considering what Kingshowman does. But nobody believes I'm him now." I said I had the bad luck of having the same opinion about deletion. If instead there were sock puppets trying to get the article deleted, then 96.61.173.1 (talk · contribs) and 76.181.233.121 (talk · contribs) would be accused of being sock puppets and I would not be. It's not about anybody's politics, and that couldn't be further from what I said. The same thing could happen if I wanted to keep an article about Jackson Pollock that had been created by a blocked user. HoorayForAmerica (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That comment of mine was removed. And I'm not commenting here further because I've been accused of encouraging you to sock. This is ridiculous especially in light how how completely adamant you are in keeping this particular account. If I really thought you were going to go out and sock, I would attempt to catch you (which is exactly how I got here in the first place). I may be overly sarcastic and speak in roundabout ways, but I certainly would not seriously encourage anyone to sock. I've been hunting socks for as long as I've been here. I will not be commenting here again. Good luck! Doc talk 23:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for your help. HoorayForAmerica (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Unblock reasoning

8 years ago