User talk:DollyD: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 19:27, 25 February 2023

Blocked

Your recent actions clearly violate the terms of your unblock. Brandon (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have done absolutely nothing wrong. My only recent action has been to vote in an RfA of MZMcBride, an editor I admire. I am not an alternate account of MZMcBride. I have not abused any multiple accounts and find this accusation rather tiresome. DollyD (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have reviewed the checkuser data and concur with Brandon's findings. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:08, 25 December 2010 (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.

I'm placing this on hold. You have contacted ArbCom, and the blocking admin is already checking with another checkuser. The sheer level of aggressive indignance, however, would lead me to not want to unblock: this type of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is not something that is prized on Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I've been through this process before. It's hard not to become cynical about it. I don't feel I have been aggressive, but any mentality I have is pretty realistic. I know that I haven't abused multiple accounts. I'm not just going to roll over and accept an unfair block. Sorry. DollyD (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection

This user who blocked me was a checkuser, so they could clearly see that I haven't abused any accounts if they took the time. Very disappointing. DollyD (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you specifically on CheckUser evidence. Brandon (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this, because I KNOW that I haven't abused multiple accounts. At best you may have someone in a similar IP range. I personally feel this is retribution for my pro-MZMcBride comment. DollyD (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will request another CheckUser reviews the evidence and my actions. Brandon (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I've just written to Arbcom and I'll make a complaint to Audit Subcommittee if proper action isn't taken. Nothing personal, but this is really unfair. DollyD (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed my evidence to the functionaries mailing list and have requested a review. It is also accessible to ArbCom if they deem it appropriate to review themselves. Brandon (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed "multiple accounts"

I would like to see the supposed "multiple accounts" I have been abusing, along with firm evidence that they are me. If this cannot be produced, I will be making a complaint about the user Brandon to the Audit Subcommittee. Thanks! DollyD (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, make your complaint. A little WP:AGF that people around here are simply doing their job. You've begun a process with ArbCom already. Wait it out. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

You are banned and there's nothing you can do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light of Groth (talk • contribs) 05:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]