User talk:La Harle
La Harle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What exactly am I supposed to say here? Unblock me? Since I was suddenly blocked without anyone explaining it to me, it's a bit hard to defend myself...It might be related to that sock puppet accusation, but the CheckUser was declined...Doesn't that mean the accusation was wrong? The person who declined it said something about "ducks", but I'm not really sure what he meant. I make three edits, get harassed by some fruit loop, and now I'm banned all of a sudden? How do I go about getting this undone so I can resume my editing?
Decline reason:
Requests with personal attacks will not be considered. The word "ducks" was clearly linked to a page explaining the usage of the term. Kuru talk 22:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
La Harle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So I can't be unblocked because I called the guy who attacked me in the first place a fruit loop? But the fact that they accused me of being a sockpuppet is fine? I just came here to improve a couple articles, then I get banned for no good reason, and people keep spamming my talk page with insults.
Decline reason:
The evidence against you is extremely convincing; that's why the checkuser was declined, there was no need to look at the technical evidence. Neither of your requests has addressed the reason for your block; sockpuppetry. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
La Harle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
That's not true. My first request did. What am I supposed to say? I'm not sockpuppet. I don't see how something like that can be proven. And what is this "technical evidence"? I edited three pages. That's all. Was something wrong with those edits? I had to put up with spiteful editors showing up and messing with those edits just for kicks, but there was nothing wrong with them that I can see.
Decline reason:
Based on your editing patterns, it is far to close to be coincidental that you make substantially the same edits as User:Fragments of Jade and several of other accounts linked to it. I see no need for checkuser here, since the editing is so similar, it could not be a coincidence. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
La Harle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Again, what are these alleged patterns? I've only edited three articles!
Decline reason:
[1], [2]. Two different people making absolutely identical edits to the same article? Not likely. J.delanoygabsadds 05:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
La Harle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So, you reviewed my unblock request without actually reading the case? I do believe I explained that already, but if you need more detail, fine. First, the edits are NOT identical. I checked out the history of the page, and I noticed two users were edit-warring over who voiced Mion/Shion, and I also noticed that Satoko's voice actor was a bit off. Noticing another edit war further down, I checked out that too. United's edits did sound better, taking care of redundant statements like "Mion is the youngest classmate in Keiichi's class" or "Keiichi shot little children". Also, they added much needed character details for the cast of one of the manga arcs. And United's edits also removed false information, such as Keiichi's paranoia driving him to murder in two arcs, when paranoia was only the cause in one arc. Sock or not, that doesn't matter to me. It doesn't change the fact that the edits United made bettered the page. So, while fixing up the voice actor errors, I copy and pasted those edits, typing in some of the one-word fixes by hand. If you think it is wierd to check out the history of a page and make edits, a lot of people here do it. Oddly enough, Erigu included. The page is better now, so what's the problem?
Decline reason:
The problem is, you are evading your block on another account. Sock or not does matter very much to us, and the evidence is compelling. I think we've had enough at this point; this is the 5th unblock request that doesn't address the reasons for your block. You will no longer be allowed to edit this page. Mangojuicetalk 06:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
Note to admins reviewing these unblock requests[edit]
Please check the history of this talk page carefully. La Harle has removed several pieces of evidence against him left by myself and several other admins, and has done so in a way that obscures the sitution. Please check all edits to this talk page for a complete picture of the evidence against him; when viewed in full, you may get a different idea of the situation than his unblock requests imply. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? I removed Luna's rather mean comment, which was uncalled for. And what you pointed out was already pointed out by the admin who declined the last request, and it has been addressed in the current one. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read a bit more carefully, or were you just trying to make me look guilty by saying I was deleting evidence? La Harle (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)