User talk:Gentleness

Indefinite block[edit]

You have been identified by checkuser Dmcdevit as a sockpuppet of Veesicle (talk · contribs). As you are evading the indefblock of that account for abusive sockpuppetry, I have blocked you indefinitely. WjBscribe 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My abusiveness is yet to have been proven ;) Gentleness · Talk 13:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

After thinking about this for a while, I'm requesting an unblock. My original indef block accused me of abusive sockpuppetry, but I've never votestacked or abused multiple accounts in any way [although I may have made comments on other accounts/whilst logged out]. As you can see from this account, I was making an attempt to contribute constructively here. I created two articles, Dirt Farmer and Up in Them Guts and I don't think I was being disruptive, so my block came as a bit of a surprise. I'm not sure what the justification for the checkuser was therefore, but I don't really care, all I'm asking is to be unbanned so that I can carry on editing normally. Thanks. 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This account was clearly used abusively to avoid a block in violation of WP:SOCK. — Yamla (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2007 (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.

That's a bit unfair isn't it? Everyone says that if you get banned and really want to come back you should just get a new account and edit non-disruptively. And I did! And I got banned again anyway? Even though I'm not being disruptive anymore [and my contributions are proof]?

Gentleness, sit tight; I'm trying to argue your case with the blocking admin. For what it's worth, I think that you've made some great contributions, and should be unblocked. Don't try to add another unblock request, though, okay? GlassCobra 19:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not a huge big deal and I'm not going to cry a river if I'm not unblocked, but I do feel it's a little unfair as I've tried to be fairly inconspicuous. I have edited since this account's block under Special:Contributions/81.153.124.23, but if I was truly trying to game the system I'd simply have moved on and made a new account, which I haven't. I'm just asking to be allowed to edit normally without having the ghost of a random checkuser getting me banned again when I'm trying to be constructive. Obviously I can be blocked again straight away if people think I'm playing up. Gentleness · Talk 22:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, (furthermore) the most obvious thing I'm neglecting to do here is apologise for the time I've wasted in previously disrupting Wikipedia. That is honestly not my intention here now, I was just bored and thought I could do a little work cleaning up articles about things that I happen to like. That's all. 86.164.161.214 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]