User talk:DoubleReds

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for you're either Bofors40mm (talk · contribs) or are editing on their behalf. I'm not exactly sure what's going on with all these accounts, but the common thread is spamming references to a book apparently written by the owner of the Bofors40mm account (who claims that he was hacked and impersonated by people spamming references to the book...), despite this being judged a non-usable source in discussions. I'm not convinced by the various explanations which are being offered for all of these accounts, and would suggest that you lay out exactly what's going on here as part of any unblock request.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see my 05:24, 16 October 2013 post at User talk:Bofors40mm#Blocked. Nick-D (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am confused. Meatpuppetry? War-editing? You accept all my edits except any mention of Grant McLachlan's book, which has earned praise from leading academics., which clearly those edits are from. You also seem to disregard Ian Skennerton's research, which improves the information on these pages. You clearly lack impartiality and your credentials lack credibility. Clearly you are a wannabe academic lightweight. No one I have spoken to have heard of a Nick Dowling from Canberra. You're rubbing a lot of people the wrong way and doing Wikipedia a disservice by pursuing such a campaign against a credited author. I think that Deb was right when she questioned your application for adminship when she said, "I was going to support, only the answer to the first question makes me wonder if you realise what you are letting yourself in for." I know that you like to say, "Wikipedia doesn't work that way," and "Wikipedia is about cooperation and consensus" but your conduct is hypocritical and antagonistic. You should start practicing what you preach.--DoubleReds (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Here are three reasons, any one of which would have been sufficient grounds for declining this request. (1) You are clearly either a blocked editor evading a block, or another person helping that editor to evade a block by editing for them. (It looks to me very much more like the former, but it doesn't make any difference which it is, as they both amount to the same thing.) (2) It is clear that a major part of your purpose in editing is to promote a book by someone that you know. (3) Unblock requests that consist largely of attacking the blocking administrator are scarcely ever accepted, for at least two reasons. Firstly, your unblock request is decided on the basis of an assessment of whether you are likely to be a net benefit to the project, and comments about someone else don't help to assess that, and secondly, the very fact of taking a battleground approach to other editors and attacking anyone whose actions you disagree with is unacceptable, and adds further reason for keeping you blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2013 (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.