Otherworld77

September 2018

Hello, I'm Charlesdrakew. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Jysk (store), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Charles (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Otherworld77, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Otherworld77! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

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).

Otherworld77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Greetings, I am requesting to be unblocked as I strongly believe I am being wrongfully accused of being a "sock-puppet" and of violating Wikipedia rules. If you take a moment to review my edits, they are all legitimate contributions and I try to provide reliable sources wherever possible. I am not edit-warring or vandalizing any pages. I am allowed to have my own opinions on certain topics and contribute knowledge so long as it is accurate and has merit. User "LouisAragon" has been harassing me for months and targets/reverts all my edits without providing any rationale or intelligent academic reasoning. If I make a legitimate contribution with a reliable source, the user will immediately revert it without any discussion whatsoever and proceed to block me. I believe this user has his own set of personal biases and if certain edits oppose his viewpoints he reverts them right away. This is unfair and not conducive to what Wikipedia stands for. Please take a chance to review my edits and see that they are all within Wikipedia's guidelines and are not malicious in any way. I am being more then respectful to others, provide rationale to my edits, and have always encouraged others to provide sources if they don't agree with my edits or have proof to the contrary. If you review my recent edit on "List of currencies in Europe" as an example, I added Armenia to the list as it was the only state to be excluded. The beginning of the article refers to all "50 politically European" states, Armenia being one of them. Even Cyprus, which is geographically entirely in Western Asia (like Armenia) is on the list. So, I added Armenia since it is a "politically European" state and provided 2 sources (one of which being directly from the Council of Europe website). As always, user LouisAragon reverted it without providing any reason or academic rationale/contrary proof. It is, therefore, safe to assume that he is reverting edits which don't agree with his own biases. These actions should not be supported. I thank you for your time and hope you will recognize this and make a fair decision.

Decline reason:

Declining for exactly the reason Tony expresses below. Yamla (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2018 (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.

• Its pretty hard to harass an account that is 12 days old for months. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Is that the only rationale you have? Completely ignoring all the other information does not seem fair at all...

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).

Otherworld77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hoping to get a second review to my concerns noted above as I feel the previous Admin did not take the time to read my reason entirely or check the validity of my claims. I have had to make a new account because user LouisAragon keeps harassing me and making false claims against me. I stand with my original statement that this has been going on for months and the fact that this is exactly what happened again after only 12 days is proof that I am being targeted. I am making genuine contributions with sources to a variety of articles, I am abiding by Wikipedia rules, and am not vandalizing or making disruptive edits. As you can see by the lackluster response above, no valid reasons were provided as to what exactly I am doing "wrong" or why I cannot continue to make legitimate contributions. A fair review would be appreciated.

Decline reason:

Self-admitted block evader. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:00, 18 September 2018 (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.

As an admitted sockpuppet account, you are not permitted to set up this account. Until your original account is unblocked, you are not welcome here. --Yamla (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)