User talk:Pater Wourer

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).

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

Request reason:

So that I can edit the "Hoddesdon" article please, and perhaps some others over time.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kuru (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2012 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

I can confirm that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia! Do I need to supply references who will vouch for my "good character"? I have read, but never edited Wikipedia before, and so I decided to create an account. That was before I went on holiday. Now I'm back and eager to get started, but it won't let me edit anything. Is there a time-out on unused accounts? I am computer savvy and I work as part of a large geographically dispersed team who travel all over the place. We are provided with secure laptops with sim-cards, encrypted hard drives, latest anti-virus precautions and so on and we are prevented from installing anything on them ourselves. Updates come automatically from the IT department when we vpn into the company system. If you need more information please let me know.

Decline reason:

You state that you can confirm yoour block is not necessary but I see no such confirmation. Please do not pose questions for clarification in an unblock request. If you need more information, simply post a message here requesting the information. Tiderolls 00:08, 25 May 2012 (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 the reviewing admin -it is likely this account is a sock of DeFacto (talk · contribs). TN X Man 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some difficulty in accepting that if, as this user claims, he has never edited here before, his very first edit ever should be a wholly competent download of a photograph onto his user page.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need some more information please I was told to post here if I needed more informaton...

Do I need to supply references who will vouch for my "good character"?
Is there a time-out on unused accounts?
What exactly do I need to do to unlock my account?

A note to Anthony Bradbury

I said I hadn't edited Wikipedia before, not that I hadn't used a computer before or that I couldn't read.

A note to TNXMan

Who is the "the reviewing admin" and what do you mean by "it is likely this account is a sock of DeFacto (talk · contribs)"?

--Pater Wourer (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your request[edit]

Please be patient, we are all volunteers here. For instance, I am at work and will not be able to respond in detail immediately. Regards Tiderolls 13:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is posting an {{Admin help}} template for more attention to your request. Tiderolls 13:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my impatience annoys you but, with all due respect, I'm a volunteer too, itching to get stuck in, and I don't know why I haven't been connected up properly yet. Pater Wourer (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Admin help}}

I need some more information please I was told to post here if I needed more informaton...

Do I need to supply references who will vouch for my "good character"?
Is there a time-out on unused accounts?
What exactly do I need to do to unlock my account?

--Pater Wourer (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will offer my answers to your questions, but leave your help template live so that other admins might correct my information as needed.

No.
No.
As a sockpuppet of a banned user, this account will most likely never be unblocked. Tiderolls 22:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{adminhelp}} template. This account almost certainly is a sockpuppet, and has been blocked per checkuser, so normal admins will not unblock it. If you wish to be unblocked, please email arbcom-l

lists.wikimedia.org. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I've done as you advised. Let's hope they can get this thing fixed. Pater Wourer (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did that, yet my account is still locked and I haven't had any reponse here, or by email, in more than four days now. Pater Wourer (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Admin help}} What do I have to do to get this account unlocked? Perhaps it would be quicker to create a new one from scratch. Any suggestions please? Pater Wourer (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot. We don't usually unblock socks - you need to go back to your original account and sort out unblock there as suggested there User talk:DeFacto. Keep asking for unblock here, will just get the access removed. Create a new account and you will be spotted. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{admin help}} It's been nearly 2 weeks now, and I've still had no response from mailto:arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Ronhjones says that socks aren't unblocked. Well I'm not asking for a "sock" to be unblocked, just this, my one and only account. Does anyone else have any suggestions? Abandon this lost cause and create a new account and start again? Pater Wourer (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of sockpuppetry does not translate to unblock. If you find the original advice (to seek unblock from your original account) unworkable then you are, indeed, at an impasse. To create new accounts will only result in more blocks. Tiderolls 23:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't a block for sockpuppetry require any sort of proof of sockpuppetry? This is my original (one and only so far) account. Why can't you, or whoever counts, seem to understand that? Where have I abused this account? Pater Wourer (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked extensively at the editing history of this account and of the "DeFacto" account. There are striking similarities, so much so that if two separate users came up with such similar editing, and also happened by sheer chance to show up on checkuser as the same, it would be a most astonishing coincidence. As for creating another sockpuppet account (or, as you prefer to call it, "Abandon this lost cause and create a new account and start again") all I can say is that if you do then I hope you will still retain the lack of self-awareness that has made your attempts to pretend to be a new user so unsuccessful. My advice is "Abandon this lost cause and find something else to do with your time, other than disrupting Wikipedia". JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have "looked extensively at the editing history of this account"? That wouldn't have taken you very long then as the problem here is that this account was blocked for abuse before it had ever been used for editing anything at all, other than the one edit action of adding a picture to its homepage! And it is exactly that problem that I am still waitng for an explanation for and help to resolve. Have the details of this account been somehow confused with those of another, or were the "striking similarities" with "DeFacto" that they had also added a picture to their homepage at some point? Pater Wourer (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. AGK [•] 09:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]