![]() |
Hi TrumpClinton! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC) |
Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.
A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.
You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
((unblock-un|your new username here))
on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.((unblock|Your reason here))
, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)CrumpPlint (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Accept reason:
TrumpClinton (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Tigrayans has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm KNHaw. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Menelik II seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. KNHaw (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
I really appreciate your diplomatic correction of my error. KNHaw (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC) |
Stop vandalising pages on Wikipedia with your own agenda and confusing others. Resourcer1 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
CrumpPlint (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not sure why I am blocked.If it has anything to do with the Tigrayans article where Resourcer1 and Sennaitgebremariam were edit warring. I was not involved in their edit war. Requesting to be unblocked.
Decline reason:
You are blocked for sockpuppetry, abusing multiple accounts. Huon (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2017 (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.
CrumpPlint (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. This is a biased conclusion by Bbb23.CrumpPlint (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
CrumpPlint (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Unblock request due to no evidence provided to me. If the Due Process of Wikipedia is not being followed here, then this Block of my account is based on Prejudice and Bias of Bbb23 who has Mentor-Mentee relationship with Resourcer1 who made two Sockpuppet Investigations that were either Closed or Closed [2] and [3] due to being Baseless. Provide the evidence of this supposed "sockpuppet" conclusion when no investigation has concluded so. This continued block of my account is Politically biased by Bbb23 and his/her prejudices against my edits? or pro-defense of Resroucer1 user.
Decline reason:
There's been no violation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines in placing a block upon you. Your account was investigated by someone with checkuser access. They determined with certainty that you had violated WP:SOCK. They then blocked you. Your claim of prejudice, bias, and political bias is not supported. Yamla (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2017 (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.
CrumpPlint (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
CrumpPlint (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is just to inform of my decision to Block Wikipedia and its fallible contributors notably the admins, checkusers, sockpuppet users etc.Wikipedia is unwelcoming to users with a different opinion. Accusations of sockpuppetry are used to stifle discussion, collaboration. I am leaving wikipedia since I have been blocked for "sockpuppetry" when admins like Bbb23 permit truly disruptive user accounts to continue. Wikipedia isn't a reliable "encylcopedia" and will not be if biased decisions like my block are permitted while allowing users with mulitple accounts to request "sockpuppet investigations" such as the user Resourcer1. This "project" has failed and will continue to fail because the users are biased and Klanish. Bbb23 will never do Checkuser sockpuppet check of Resourcer1 because of his/her bias. Per Wikipedia guidelines, a Checkuser is supposed to do an SPI of the requester as well. That did not happen and won't happen because Bbb23 are accomplices or some of form meatpuppet relationship Resourcer1 being some bottom meatpuppet of Bbb23.CrumpPlint (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
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
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲水 11:01, 1 March 2017 (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.