Lr0^^k (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was aware of policy, reverts fall under WP:NOT3RR, as suspected socks involved Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim, subsequent reverts by friends/people called upon by sock included reverts of constructive edits. Once the reverting of constructive material stopped, no reverts done. Please see page History. Discussion of 'contested' additions (initiated by sock) currently undergoing on talk page. I would like to appeal block, and in the worst case a simple 'topic ban', as all edits on this site constructive. Thank you495656778774 (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Accusing others of sockpuppetry isn't really an excuse. If you believe that someone is a sock, discuss it on the talk page or bring it up at SPI. Offhand I notice that one of the accounts (User:Mikrobølgeovn) has been active since 2009 and while that doesn't mean that someone isn't a sock, it does make it less likely. You also need to take this into consideration: what if they aren't socks and aren't people getting their friends to revert your edits. What if it was just that you wrote something that might have been wrong? This is when you need to go discuss things on the talk page, not just start edit warring. I think that you should take this time to look over general editing guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 22 August 2015 (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.
- You can blank most other things on your userpage but you cannot blank out any block/unblock posts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)