User talk:TheCreaTorPonic

February 2018[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 18 February 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

The edits have been posted and recommended on Reddit see (wikiinaction) and I am not a sock but an individual editing within the rules of Wikipedia, the edits are not only correct... but not in violation of any rules. Why revert edits that break rules on WP:RS? why revert any edits that comply with policy? I want to be unblocked and my edits confirmed.TheCreaTorPonic (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Making pointless attacks on the blocking admin is a very effective way of not getting unblocked. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:20, 18 February 2018 (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.

Reviewing admin: I do not believe this is meatpuppetry but straight block evasion. However both are still socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, given your experience of purely indef blocking people for no reason even after correcting information! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thepeeplescourt&diff=prev&oldid=816632784

And yet your admin vote passed 168-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NeilN

Why do you block people you disagree with? and why do you block those for correcting information that complies with WP policy and rules? TheCreaTorPonic (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect I passed my RFA in part because I can tell who is trolling and vandalizing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, were these also vandalizing?

initially blocked for 31 hours https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChocolateRabbit&diff=prev&oldid=823386407 and then 40 mins later became indef https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AChocolateRabbit&type=block

His crime? adding accurate information to association football https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tando_Velaphi&diff=prev&oldid=823361995

And yet someone who actually was vandalizing goes unpunished! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olivier_Giroud&diff=next&oldid=823328764

Your behavior is laughable at best!

Closing admin note: " that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption " and that edits made were not only inline with Policy but correct. Something that is going ignored.TheCreaTorPonic (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Not necersarrily pointless when pointing out previous behavior of said admin, in regards to the block please review " that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption " and see my edits which are in fact in line with WP policy and rules. Thanks again.TheCreaTorPonic (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Trolling and attacking other users is not the purpose of the unblock template or the ability to edit the talk page. You have not addressed the WP:SOCK issues. Please pay particular attention to the part about "If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2018 (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.