Thomasappleyard
Blocked
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thomasappleyard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What's all this about? Thomasappleyard (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Painfully obvious block evasion. 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille! 11:23, 3 May 2011 (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.
- You sign up and immediately appear on my talk page asking that I reinstate an article on an obscure topic I deleted shortly after it was created by a long-running block evader. That's more than a little bit suspicious... Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's a deal. You restore the article on the Flag Society of Australia.
My lawyer has informed me that, theoretically, if I was to use wikipedia to committ a telecommunications offence, the police would have to lay charges, they would have to track you down and obtain a statement, and, if I pleaded not guilty, they would have to hand over that statement to me as part of the brief. And the name on the statement would not be Nick-D.
I think you will agree this compromise represents a good outcome for you.
Thomasappleyard (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thomasappleyard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm involved in a mailing list and someone started a tread on there about the Flag Society of Australia which included the link for the wikipedia article on said organisation. When I followed the link the article was gone so I decided to join wikipedia to see if I could resurrect it. The page on the deleted entry said to ask one Nick-D first if the intention is to make a new article the same as the previous one. I am now unable to edit pages and was sent the following:
Information about the block: account creation from this IP address (124.184.179.214) was blocked by Nick-D, who gave the reason Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Thomasappleyard". The reason given for Thomasappleyard's block is: "Block evasion"..
All I know about my IP address is that my location is a public university.
I would like to be part of wikipedia under the handle Thomasappleyard.
Thomasappleyard (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The blocked user is not allowed to edit Wikipedia. That includes editing Wikipedia by asking other people to make his desired edits on his behalf. This account is blocked because it is necessary to keep a blocked user from editing Wikipedia. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:50, 5 May 2011 (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.
Thomasappleyard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Well I should be unbanned then, because nobody asked me to do anything of the sort. Let me repeat myself. There was a post made to a mailing list of which I am a member. The sole subject of the post was the availability of membership of the Flag Society of Australia (FSA). The post ended with a list of FSA related links. I followed them all including the one to the now deleted wikipedia article, which is how we arrived at this point. I think it might be best if someone with hitherto nothing to do with this sequence of events deals with this request. Extraordinary. Thomasappleyard (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am uninvolved with the dispute in question, but as it's clear that you have been involved with block evasion, even if you think the original block was unfair, this account should remain blocked. The block applies to the user, not the account. If you wish to appeal your original block, you should do so from the account in question. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 11:48, 5 May 2011 (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.
Note that the sockmaster here, Gloriousrevolution (talk · contribs), stated that he or she is a member of the Australian Flag Society and was editing to promote that organisation's views (see: User talk:Gloriousrevolution). This editor keeps coming back under various accounts to create articles on Australian flag related organisations and push their POV. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thomasappleyard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I think the big boss should adjudicate on this or else, as an independently wealthy man, I could ask my lawyers to find out some way of filing a lawsuit against wikipedia that would inevitably result in all us coming face to face in court where one can call me a sockpuppet with the full protection of the law. I don't know any Gloriousrevolution or FSA opposition. I just want to put the article on the Flag Society of Australia back up. Maybe one of you could do it instead? I'm most unhappy an this is my final word. Signed with some feeling, Thomasappleyard.
Please include a decline or accept 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.
Now that you are suing Wikipedia, WP:LEGAL requires that you cannot be unblocked until your lawsuit has concluded. From now until then, you should only communicate with the Wikimedia Foundation through the foundation's attorney. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Does that rule take effect from now, or the moment the Statement of Claim, Writ, or Summons is filed?
- I can find out who you people are through entirely lawful, peaceful and legitimate means.
- Thomasappleyard (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Re "you should only communicate with the Wikimedia Foundation through the foundation's attorney", and apparent continuing legal threats, I have suspended your Talk page access -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)