User talk:DollyD

Blocked

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

This user's unblock request is on hold because the reviewer is waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator.

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

---

Blocking administrator: Brandon (talk)

Reviewing administrator: (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Administrator use only:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1=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={{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=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)|accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)