Mixedbloodadvocate

UNBLOCK PLEASE

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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).

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

Request reason:

I am NOT Royalty90. There is no proof whatsoever. I don't know this person and find it discriminatory in nature that this administrator who blocked me has the power to delete anything they wish without oversight. They deleted the page Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods, because they have some grudge against the tribe, which is city recognized. Please help. This is wrong! The tribe has MANY sources... more than MOST pages on tribes. Why is the Una Nation being targeted by this user? Please check the sources. You'll see that the page and my block was done out of spite and tyrannic actions. Mixedbloodadvocate (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

You probably are the same person as "Royalty90", but whether you are or not makes no difference, as there several other reasons why unblocking this account would not benefit the project, including the following: you are here to spam Wikipedia with content promoting some topic you wish to publicise; you are determined to re-create content deleted as a result of consensus at a deletion discussion, trying to unilaterally impose your personal preference over that consensus; you clearly have an extensive history of using sockpuppet accounts to try to impose your personal editing preferences, whether Royalty90 was one of them or not; much of your editing is at best not supported by adequate sources and at worst downright misrepresentation; you have posted an unblock request which, instead of addressing the aspects of your editing that led to the block, instead concentrates on making absurd accusations against the blocking administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

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.

Add topic