Lytle1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for no reason, I didnt engage in any edit wars, I dint break any rules, and I am claimed to be a banned user I am not. Confirm with a check user please.Lytle1 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Matches the pattern of a banned user, as far as I can recall. Also clearly used an IP sock at some point. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (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.
- In particular, Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thats just talk. Check user me. Stop saying I am someone just because you THINK I am. I have not heard one reason as to whay you feel this besides for the fact that you for some reason hate the person you are accusing me from (based on your edit history). I am dissatisfied with this pointing the finger without any evidence. Lytle1 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Lytle1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I want a checkuser done comparing me to this so called person you claim me to be. Just saying I am a sock without giving ANY proof besides your own suspicions is not enough. Check user me, and I will be satisfied. Otherwise, there is no proof. And please, someone else besides one sided Luna Santin. She seems to have some hard feelings towards the person she claims me to be from her edit history.
Decline reason:
Funny how a user who just opened his account two days ago seems to know all about CheckUser. But of course you don't. You think, seething behind that keyboard, it beat me once but I know how to game it now ... they'll never tie this IP to me. But you don't know because you never bothered to look at the request page, that "such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask." To do so is a sure sign of a sock ... I mean, you might as well be wearing a T-shirt that says "I AM A SOCK PUPPET".Look, if editing Wikipedia is such an important part of your life, try editing something other than articles about the subjects that lead you into the same tragic patterns. You can be a moth drawn to flame or you can be a human being who learns from his experiences. It's up to you. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2007 (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.
- That is because I have been using IP's for a few months. And yes, I know what a check user is because its right there on the block page that I see when I try to edit the page. I still see no evidence. You just randomly picked someone and said I was their sock, probably because you didnt like my edits and because I am easy because I am new. Some people make me sick at how horrible of people they can be.Lytle1 (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- "I have been using IP's for a few months" Hmm, why would that be? Especially if you're a new user, as you claim to be? Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why not use IP's?Lytle1 (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- "I have been using IP's for a few months" Hmm, why would that be? Especially if you're a new user, as you claim to be? Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Lytle1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Again, I request an unblock because NOBODY has given me one piece of evidence as to how I am a sock besides that they didnt like my edits and that I am a newly registered person. Give me evidence, link me to these people you claim I am. I just want one piece of evidence, a checkuser, a connection, there is nothing you can give me to prove it. Talk about abusive power. You people cant provide any proof because I AM NOT THAT PERSON!
Decline reason:
Inadequate request. Comparing contribution patterns is sufficient grounds for a sockpuppet block. Since Wikipedia is a private website, there is no presumption of innocence in this process. — Sandstein (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2007 (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.
That's three unblock requests that have been denied (he keeps removing the one I reviewed). Any further requests will be considered frivolous and declined along with protecting the page. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Given his tendency to erase past declines, I have decided to just go ahead and protect the page. I doubt any further public unblock request could yield anything different, especially given the similar edit patterns. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)