User talk:Liberty City's Miguel

Sock-puppetry is almost harmless when it's this dumb. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Liberty City's Miguel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

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

Block message:

sock-puppet of blocked user

Blocking administrator: Mel Etitis (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. Yamla 15:15, 22 March 2007 (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).

Liberty City's Miguel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i just made a account and i was convicted of being a sock puppet

Decline reason:

That's because you are. — John Reaves (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2007 (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.

To admins: check the contributions and style (and timing) of Klptyzm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ptpgta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and maybe take a look at Butterum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Craxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the template: don't make another unblock request. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:35, 22 March 2007 (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).

Liberty City's Miguel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i was convicted of being a sock puppet without proof of being one

Decline reason:

New users edit articles. They don't start by complaining about "administrator injustices". -- Netsnipe ► 14:59, 23 March 2007 (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.