User talk:Bring back Daz Sampson

Welcome!

Hi, Bring back Daz Simpson. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your joining. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Charlie Jeff (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Bring back Daz Sampson, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bring back Daz Sampson! 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 Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marta Mateos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Almenara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited María Alharilla Casado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jaén (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you + invitation

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

October 2016

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Brøndby IF (women)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 16:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		Moves like Kim Little Barnstar
		As a recipient of the Kim Little barnstar, we'd like to thank you for make amazing Kim Little-like contributions to articles related to women's football (soccer) and WP:WOSO. Thank you for your diligent work!

Hmlarson (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Bring back Daz Sampson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #16757 was submitted on Oct 19, 2016 13:15:08. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:DOPPELGANGER

It's not clear to me why this account was blocked. See WP:DOPPELGANGER > Clean start under a new name if you'd like to take steps to remove block on "master account" per this. Your contributions are appreciated. Hmlarson (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:DOPPELGANGER does not apply here ("such accounts should not be used for editing") and WP:CLEANSTART is not available to users who have evaded a block or are making a new account to avoid scrutiny. If you would like to take steps to remove the block on your master account, or whichever account you would like to use as your only account, please read WP:STANDARDOFFER. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it may apply if the user has endured harassment. Sometimes people "act out" (in September 2015) when they've been poorly treated. If you'd like a few samples, let me know - but you can probably start with the top of this talk page. Hmlarson (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Am I really blocked for another six months, then? By my reckoning I got bombed out early Feb, came back early August, so I've already repaid my debt to wiki-society. If I was a bit keen and jumped the gun with my comeback I can sit out the 'residue' of a few days or whatever it was (although even that seems petty). Yet another six months is strikingly punitive, since the usual tariff for my (ahem) crimes is measured in days or weeks. Since doubts were expressed as to the suitability of my previous noms de guerre I ditched those and intend staying as Bring back Daz Sampson. I worry that sometimes editors caught up in the cut and thrust of policing wikipedia around the clock forget what it's like for those of us with one foot still in the real world. When you're back after a six-month sabbatical you naturally want to edit some articles, not spend ages wading through dry rules and regulations checking if it's okay. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe you that your desire to overcome your block and return to legitimate constructive editing is genuine, and I think that that's wonderful, but I have to correct you on a couple points:

1. You're not blocked for six months. Your block is indefinite, as most blocks for repeated sockpuppetry are, which means only that your block has no set length. It never expires, there's no set date where your actions are automatically forgiven and forgotten and you can just return to editing like nothing ever happened. Your block can be lifted, if you can convincingly demonstrate that you understand the behaviour that led to your being blocked and that you won't repeat that behaviour. If you can't do that, then you will remain blocked to prevent further disruption. You don't necessarily have to wait six months for that, although that's the usual standard for sockpuppetry.
2. By your reckoning, you've forgotten that you edited in April as Bring back Regi Blinker, and it's very likely you edited as an IP in July, so in fact you've persistently evaded your block. It will work in your favour to be honest about it.
3. It's the Wikipedia community that will ultimately approve or oppose your unblock request, so it is strongly to your advantage to stop making disrespectful statements that your block was "grossly disproportionate", griping that you "had to bow and scrape before the blocking admin", and referring to users not having "one foot still in the real world". This is especially true considering your block originated in part from personal attacks.
4. This last point I think you need to really understand. The Wikipedia community has an especially strong desire to deter sockpuppetry, because of the extensive severe problems we have had from users abusing multiple accounts. The fact that you made constructive contributions while blocked, no matter how well-intentioned, is a point which works strongly against you.

You can make an unblock request any time, but in my opinion it would be unlikely to succeed right now, and making unblock requests with little chance of success is considered disruptive and might lead to further sanctions. If you are serious about returning, address these points above before you make a request. If you have questions you can ask here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"It will work in your favour to be honest about it." - Isn't this what the editor said here and the request was immediately declined with no further explanation? For people who do not spend all their time in this realm of Wikipedia, there is a steep learning curve. From all of the disruptive editing and harassment I've seen, I agree that this perpetual block for an initial 2-week block for both editors is heavy-handed. I've seen lots of "sock puppets" over the years that do nothing but vandalize, troll, and disrupt. I don't think that's what's happened here and is clearly evidenced by the editing done by the accounts. You have stated a number of things that do not work in the editor's favour - what would? Or should the editor seeks some third opinions? Hmlarson (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Bring back Daz Sampson - if able, I might suggest adding the {{retired}} tag to other accounts besides your primary per this part of WP:DOPPELGANGER:

Clean start under a new name: A clean start is when a user stops using an old account in order to start afresh with a new account, usually due to past mistakes or to avoid harassment. A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account. Do not use your new account to return to topic areas, disputes, editing patterns, or behaviors previously identified as problematic, and you should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start requires that you no longer use your old account(s), which should note on their user pages that they are inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet.

Hmlarson (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Additional resources: WP:GAB, WP:NICETRY Hmlarson (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Hmlarson (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Hmlarson, I really appreciate your efforts on my behalf. I suspect if I did all this there would turn out to be some pettifogging rule against it or it would turn out to be deemed "egregious" in some way. Haha. Anyway, I've said all the right things already, but bottom line: they don't believe me. Or they don't want to call out User:Bbb23, one of the 'all-day, every-day' brigade, on his initial misjudgement. Hence the ludicrous, Kafkaesque block of unknown duration. Anyway, even if I did get back my little harem of co-morbid obsessives would soon be on my case, trying to get me jettisoned on some other pretext! Kinda flattering in a creepy way, but sad and pathetic for what I assume are grown men. I might have a crack at Simple English Wikipedia next, hopefully clean up my prose and provide some respite from the attentions of my fan club. Some of the stuff might be transferable to here I suppose (although I'm sure point 7, paragraph 4 of schedule 159b expressly forbids it!) Keep up the good work, how you don't go potty I will never know. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Bring back Daz Sampson - Wiki Loves Daz. That's for sure. His valued contributions - somehow overlooked here - will be missed. There's always the option of creating a WOSO-pedia starting with an import of existing articles as a solid start. I've considered this from time to time in lieu of going to the potty. There are also editors and admins in the community who can help provide some balance and a help shine a light on the path to re-instatement. Hmlarson (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Stories like this are also a huge motivator 1 - so I guess we'll be adding a few 100 more in Daz' honor until things can be rectified. Hmlarson (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Hmlarson: you've painted me as an enemy here but I'm honestly trying to help. If my interest was in keeping Daz blocked I just wouldn't weigh in here at all, the two of you are doing a good job of it on your own. I don't know what request you're trying to link to above, but my reply is on the assumption you are referring to this comment. What was denied was the request to run CheckUser, which I won't elaborate on here, but Daz's request is flatly untenable: they violated the multiple accounts policy multiple times and need to remain blocked to prevent and deter further disruption. If we let everyone who tried to make a new account to hide their past get away with it, the sockpuppetry policy would be meaningless. Daz's path to return to editing is to be unblocked through the proper process; I will explain why below, and that is my honest and true goal of editing this page at all. Mind you don't become a meatpuppet yourself: if you continue advising them to try to clean start and hide their abuse of the policy, I will ask at ANI to have you banned from this page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• @Bring back Daz Sampson: see what I wrote to Hmlarson above; I am trying to help here. If you want to be unblocked, you need to own up to your past mistakes. I'm not entirely familiar with your history, I can only go by what I've seen, and what I can say about that is that if you were blocked for two weeks as a first block then whatever you did must have been reasonably severe in the eyes of the blocking administrator. Had you sat out the two weeks and then came back and did the same thing again, your next block probably would have been for a month or longer, but because you didn't sit out the two weeks but created sockpuppet accounts to continue the dispute while you were blocked, it was obvious you didn't get the point of the block and also escalated to abuse of multiple accounts, so you were blocked indefinitely. For an unblock request to be successful, you need to show that you understand why you were blocked in the first place, because if you don't genuinely understand why your disruptive behaviour was disruptive, you will not avoid that behaviour in the future.

I'm advising you to deal with your block through the proper channels, and not take Hmlarson's advice to clean start, because I am highly confident you will not be able to accomplish a clean start. Speaking as an SPI clerk, your edits are very easy to spot, editing as you do in a sorely "understaffed" subject area. If you try to create another new account to go back to editing here, your detractors (harassers, as you say) will identify you, and it will be very easy for them to build a case for blocking you again. Indeed, at this point, all they have to do is demonstrate that you are who you are. On the other hand if you have been properly unblocked and have not repeated the disruption, then when your detractors try to dig up your past it will be much easier to show they are not here to build an encyclopedia. You'll be far from the first productive editor to have an indefinite block in their past. So trust me that everything that I've written on this page is in the interest of getting you back to that point, but you have to do a lot of the work yourself.

First of all, your block is a CheckUser block (technical evidence proves you have abused multiple accounts) and policy says in that case the blocking CheckUser must consent to your being unblocked. That means you first have to convince Bbb23 that you have genuinely reformed. I've never known him to be unreasonable but I'm sure it will help immensely if you can stop insulting him in every comment you make. If you can convince him that your editing will not be disruptive, my guess is he will present your request to the administrators' noticeboard for community discussion, but he's not going to waste their time with a request that's obviously going to fail.

In the meantime, if you can productively edit other Wikimedia projects (like Simple English or Commons or other languages, assuming you're not also blocked on those wikis) then you can use that as evidence that your editing here will be productive. You can try to point to your edits here, I honestly don't know how that will go: some users will see a productive history while others will see you continuing to break the sockpuppetry policy with every edit.

Like I said, I am available to answer questions as best I can, but if you're obviously not going to take my advice then there's lots of other things I can better occupy myself with here. So it's up to you to decide how to proceed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Ivanvector - It feels like you are trying to dominate and control this discussion. As you know, there are numerous editors in the community that can assist and contribute. Thanks for your efforts. You've made your point clearly and can step away at this point. Hmlarson (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually not. I've revoked Talk page access, and I will probably revert any additional comments you make, Hmlarson. Your comments are singularly unconstructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Please explain how so. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Anyone reviewing this thread and considering further requests should be aware that Sevcohaha has subsequently and explicitly declined my advice via Simple English Wikipedia. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bring back Daz Sampson. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Appeal

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Bring back Daz Sampson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18104 was submitted on Apr 22, 2017 15:33:59.

Notes:

• If you are the blocked user, an administrator will find your request on UTRS and should email you shortly. Please do not request additional unblocks. Tickets may take 24-48 hours to process. Tickets will expire after 1 week if you have not responded via the web interface to any emails from the reviewing administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@User:Just Chilling If possible could you please copy my UTRS appeal here? I obviously thought quite carefully what to put in there, but unfortunately didn't keep a copy as I didn't think I would need to duplicate it. If the text from yesterday is still available I'd like to re-use it as the basis of the appeal you asked me to make here. Thank you, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Just Chilling (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Bring back Daz Sampson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

I have waited six months without trying to evade my block for sock-puppetry and have used the time productively off-Wiki. I recognise my previous behaviour which led to the block was unacceptable and promise not to repeat it. During my block I have also made some positive contributions to simple English Wikipedia. I am hoping that a "standard offer" might now be considered appropriate as a way back for me.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

Women's football (soccer) articles. It's a very undervalued and quiet corner of the encyclopedia, so if I was allowed back, I'd be confident of "keeping my nose clean". I would be very happy to get back and beaver away quietly without running into any potential issues with any other editors. Specifically, the European Championships for women's football (soccer) are happening soon and I would like to help expand, update and in some cases, create articles for the players taking part.

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.

I was originally blocked for 2 weeks for edit-warring, then, regrettably, used several different sock-puppet accounts to continue editing. I now see that an indefinite block was appropriate, so it certainly wasn't an error. At the time I was indignant and rather less than courteous to the administrators and would-be-administrators who applied the policies. Having read the stuff back it reflects badly on me and I apologise unreservedly. But I am asking for "mercy" and another chance as my actual edits were always good.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?

Just that I spent quite a long time blocked before my last block so in actual fact the total block period is now more like 12 months. Without seeking to trivialise my offences, I will suggest that the tariff is in danger of becoming disproportionate to the "crime".

Obviously, I will only use one account and I am proposing to use "Bring back Daz Sampson". Doubts were expressed as to the suitability of some of the other usernames which made fun of a Scottish football team eg. "Sevcohaha". However, I am prepared to be guided on this.

My oldest account is "Clavdia Chauchat" (AKA Vanished user llkdfkj4isw4) and "M?lfarlig!" was also me. So I can point to a record of many thousands of good edits over several years. Clearly if I was allowed back I would declare all my previous names on my userpage, to demonstrate that my old MO of getting back in the game with a new nom-de-guerre is wrong, and now completely behind me.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=:::''Why do you believe you should be unblocked?'' :::I have waited six months without trying to evade my block for sock-puppetry and have used the time productively off-Wiki. I recognise my previous behaviour which led to the block was unacceptable and promise not to repeat it. During my block I have also made some positive contributions to simple English Wikipedia. I am hoping that a "standard offer" might now be considered appropriate as a way back for me. :::''If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?'' :::Women's football (soccer) articles. It's a very undervalued and quiet corner of the encyclopedia, so if I was allowed back, I'd be confident of "keeping my nose clean". I would be very happy to get back and beaver away quietly without running into any potential issues with any other editors. Specifically, the European Championships for women's football (soccer) are happening soon and I would like to help expand, update and in some cases, create articles for the players taking part. :::''Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.'' :::I was originally blocked for 2 weeks for edit-warring, then, regrettably, used several different sock-puppet accounts to continue editing. I now see that an indefinite block was appropriate, so it certainly wasn't an error. At the time I was indignant and rather less than courteous to the administrators and would-be-administrators who applied the policies. Having read the stuff back it reflects badly on me and I apologise unreservedly. But I am asking for "mercy" and another chance as my actual edits were always good. :::''Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?'' :::Just that I spent quite a long time blocked before my last block so in actual fact the total block period is now more like 12 months. Without seeking to trivialise my offences, I will suggest that the tariff is in danger of becoming disproportionate to the "crime". :::Obviously, I will only use one account and I am proposing to use "Bring back Daz Sampson". Doubts were expressed as to the suitability of some of the other usernames which made fun of a Scottish football team eg. "Sevcohaha". However, I am prepared to be guided on this. :::My oldest account is "Clavdia Chauchat" (AKA Vanished user llkdfkj4isw4) and "M?lfarlig!" was also me. So I can point to a record of many thousands of good edits over several years. Clearly if I was allowed back I would declare all my previous names on my userpage, to demonstrate that my old MO of getting back in the game with a new nom-de-guerre is wrong, and now completely behind me. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=:::''Why do you believe you should be unblocked?'' :::I have waited six months without trying to evade my block for sock-puppetry and have used the time productively off-Wiki. I recognise my previous behaviour which led to the block was unacceptable and promise not to repeat it. During my block I have also made some positive contributions to simple English Wikipedia. I am hoping that a "standard offer" might now be considered appropriate as a way back for me. :::''If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?'' :::Women's football (soccer) articles. It's a very undervalued and quiet corner of the encyclopedia, so if I was allowed back, I'd be confident of "keeping my nose clean". I would be very happy to get back and beaver away quietly without running into any potential issues with any other editors. Specifically, the European Championships for women's football (soccer) are happening soon and I would like to help expand, update and in some cases, create articles for the players taking part. :::''Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.'' :::I was originally blocked for 2 weeks for edit-warring, then, regrettably, used several different sock-puppet accounts to continue editing. I now see that an indefinite block was appropriate, so it certainly wasn't an error. At the time I was indignant and rather less than courteous to the administrators and would-be-administrators who applied the policies. Having read the stuff back it reflects badly on me and I apologise unreservedly. But I am asking for "mercy" and another chance as my actual edits were always good. :::''Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?'' :::Just that I spent quite a long time blocked before my last block so in actual fact the total block period is now more like 12 months. Without seeking to trivialise my offences, I will suggest that the tariff is in danger of becoming disproportionate to the "crime". :::Obviously, I will only use one account and I am proposing to use "Bring back Daz Sampson". Doubts were expressed as to the suitability of some of the other usernames which made fun of a Scottish football team eg. "Sevcohaha". However, I am prepared to be guided on this. :::My oldest account is "Clavdia Chauchat" (AKA Vanished user llkdfkj4isw4) and "M?lfarlig!" was also me. So I can point to a record of many thousands of good edits over several years. Clearly if I was allowed back I would declare all my previous names on my userpage, to demonstrate that my old MO of getting back in the game with a new nom-de-guerre is wrong, and now completely behind me. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=:::''Why do you believe you should be unblocked?'' :::I have waited six months without trying to evade my block for sock-puppetry and have used the time productively off-Wiki. I recognise my previous behaviour which led to the block was unacceptable and promise not to repeat it. During my block I have also made some positive contributions to simple English Wikipedia. I am hoping that a "standard offer" might now be considered appropriate as a way back for me. :::''If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?'' :::Women's football (soccer) articles. It's a very undervalued and quiet corner of the encyclopedia, so if I was allowed back, I'd be confident of "keeping my nose clean". I would be very happy to get back and beaver away quietly without running into any potential issues with any other editors. Specifically, the European Championships for women's football (soccer) are happening soon and I would like to help expand, update and in some cases, create articles for the players taking part. :::''Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.'' :::I was originally blocked for 2 weeks for edit-warring, then, regrettably, used several different sock-puppet accounts to continue editing. I now see that an indefinite block was appropriate, so it certainly wasn't an error. At the time I was indignant and rather less than courteous to the administrators and would-be-administrators who applied the policies. Having read the stuff back it reflects badly on me and I apologise unreservedly. But I am asking for "mercy" and another chance as my actual edits were always good. :::''Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?'' :::Just that I spent quite a long time blocked before my last block so in actual fact the total block period is now more like 12 months. Without seeking to trivialise my offences, I will suggest that the tariff is in danger of becoming disproportionate to the "crime". :::Obviously, I will only use one account and I am proposing to use "Bring back Daz Sampson". Doubts were expressed as to the suitability of some of the other usernames which made fun of a Scottish football team eg. "Sevcohaha". However, I am prepared to be guided on this. :::My oldest account is "Clavdia Chauchat" (AKA Vanished user llkdfkj4isw4) and "M?lfarlig!" was also me. So I can point to a record of many thousands of good edits over several years. Clearly if I was allowed back I would declare all my previous names on my userpage, to demonstrate that my old MO of getting back in the game with a new nom-de-guerre is wrong, and now completely behind me. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Support - it seems apparent you know what went wrong that led to your block, and I don't really believe you ever really tried to hide the fact that you were using multiple accounts and you haven't continued since the last kerfuffle. Thus I don't see any preventive reason this block needs to remain in place. If in the future you feel you are being harassed, please see WP:DWH and/or contact an administrator for assistance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)