User talk:Ftsw

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).

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

Request reason:

I´m not this other User, furthermore the positive contribution I've made should outweigh the alleged "vandalism"

Decline reason:

If it looks like a duck... (X! · talk) · @744 · 16:51, 3 October 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.

--Ftsw (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC) {{unblock-auto|same as above}}[reply]

I've {{tlp}}'d the unblock-auto template; you do not use that template for direct blocks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page

If you continue to edit disruptively here you will lose the ability to edit this page. Tiderolls 16:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm no chance given here for a actual review of the unblock request. Which means I'm not the one disrupting this page. --Ftsw (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user is not allowed to remove declined unblock requests during their block. To do so is disruptive. Do not repeat this action. Tiderolls 17:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock #2

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).

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

Request reason:

Please give me a real chance here --Ftsw (talk) 8:11 pm, Today (UTC+3)

Decline reason:

socks are for Christmas presents not wikipedia Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 3 October 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.

Concentrate on getting your registered account unblocked. Then you can worry about the IP block. Tiderolls 17:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both account and IP is blocked, I can only edit this user page and that I can project will be soon taken away from me too . --Ftsw (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All irrelevant. The Autoblock unblock template does not apply here because you are blocked directly. Tiderolls 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I should know that better. --Ftsw (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin abuse/misuse

The decline comments shows clearly that the admin are trolling and not sincerely reviewing the unblock requests. --Ftsw (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock #3

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).

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

Request reason:

Admins and sysops should review the unblock resquest seriously, not trolling around as the commments above shows. Which leads to the question, who are now the real trolls?

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

I agree to that above. --Ftsw (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC) I can´t show you that, if I'm not unblocked. --Ftsw (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. (X! · talk) · @804 · 18:17, 3 October 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.

--Ftsw (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

If you repost an Autoblock unblock template or post another unblock template that does not address the issue(s) of your block, I will block your ability to edit this page. Tiderolls 18:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of doing that review my unblock request sincerely and honest, that's all I' m asking for and then give me a chance. You all are denying me the opportunity to prove myself . --Ftsw (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being denied anything. Your unblock requests are being reviewed and declined. You are presenting no new evidence. My suggestion is that you leave messages here for the admins to read. Do not apply an unblock template that ignores the issue(s) of your block or repeats unblock rationale that has been declined. This is a misuse of the unblock template and wastes time. This cannot continue. Tiderolls 18:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, wrong again because decline "reason" aren't such like : "If it looks like a duck..." and "socks are for Christmas presents not wikipedia" --Ftsw (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for sockpuppetry, and your unblock requests were not convincing in the least bit. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's no excuse for such answers. --Ftsw (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to explain the situation to you. If you are unwilling or unable to understand then I can be of no further assistance. I can, however, assist those that wish to contribute constructively here by preventing them from having to waste their time with users that cannot edit within policy. Decide which group you wish to join. Regards Tiderolls 19:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With such ignorant statement you have already decided which group I´m in. I therefore have no word over my own fate. --Ftsw (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

unblock please as I wrote I'wont vandalaize anything anymore it is indeed waste of time --Ftsw (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think from reviewing your contributions that your disruptive edits were described as vandalism when you were blocked. No matter, they're still blockable, especially since your penultimate edit in article namespace raised several red flags: it was POV, didn't differentiate between the article text and the quotes used to justify it in footnotes, was in a topic area where we have especial authority to clamp down on harmful editing practices due to the analogous real-world issue, and used a defiant, incivil edit summary. Given the repeated nature of these requests and the sockpuppetry allegation, I think it best to close this page to further requests. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 4 October 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.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 14:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]