User talk:Overweight and ugly

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).

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

Request reason:

I am fixing formatting problems with linked dates. I stopped unlinking misformatted dates as soon as I was notified, and started fixing only the format itself. See this, this, this, and this edit. Please unblock me so that I can continue fixing linked dates with genuine formatting problems. I will no longer unlink dates.

Decline reason:

Because you created your account in order to do this date delinking, and to edit war over pages like Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/List of articles with linked ISO dates (7), and given your responses below concerning your main account, I conclude that this is a WP:GHBH violation. Return to your main account, whatever it is; if it's blocked, request unblocking there. Mangojuicetalk 05:13, 18 May 2009 (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.

First tell me what your main account is. J.delanoygabsadds 23:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my only active account. Regarding your comment here, I was updating lists that somebody else had created, by running the same script on a copy of the XML dump from a few days ago. I did stop unlinking dates as soon as I saw the message on my talk page. All of my edits after that were simply to fix the formatting, and I left the date linking alone.
All right, fine. Tell me what your inactive accounts are. J.delanoygabsadds 23:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not to share that information, as it's not relevant. Looking over this page I can understand what the concern is, but I believe I've already demonstrated good faith by changing my behavior after being notified. I stopped unlinking dates as soon as I saw the message, and my last few edits were restricted to fixing date formatting issues. I'll try to provide a better edit comment and to explain my actions on the talk pages for the various lists I have been updating with new data. Please unblock me so that I can continue to perform this useful cleanup work. I will continue to refrain from unlinking dates, as I did with my last four date-related edits following my warnings.

Please stop deleting the pages I have uploaded, and reverting my good-faith edits. I will re-edit the pages where I unlinked dates to restore the date linking but to keep the formatting corrections in place. Please restore the pages you deleted, as they contain useful information.

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/List of articles with linked ISO dates (3) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/List of articles with linked ISO dates (5). Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injuction

Hello there. You might not be aware of this, but there is currently an injunction on linking or delinking dates without making substantial other changes to the article until the closure of the current Request for arbitration on dates. I shall be reverting your edits per that. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 22:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop. If you continue to link or delink dates, you will be blocked by an administrator for violating the temporary injunction. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 22:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not much to add. You didn't stop, so... J.delanoygabsadds 22:57, 16 May 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please don't make assumptions regarding any accounts I may or may not have had in the past. This is my only active account. I did not edit war. Please look at the changes I made to those pages and the new pages I created. They were to update those lists with more current information. Please also note that all of my date related edits were primarily to fix formatting issues. I started off unlinking dates while I was making those other fixed, but stopped unlinking and stuck to just formatting fixes as soon as I saw the warnings on my talk page. I have made only good-faith edits that have been misunderstood. Please examine the edit history of the last four articles I edited and note the edit comment of the person who warned me in the first place.

Decline reason:

Sorry, but it's impossible to evaluate your request without also reviewing the contributions of your earlier account or accounts, which I'm unable to do as I don't know what they are. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:13, 18 May 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please stop assuming that I even had another account or that it would be relevant. This is the account that is locked and which needs review The block was improper because I did not do what I was accused of doing I did stop unlinking dates as soon as I saw the warnings My other edits were to make useful updates to some outdated lists or to add new lists Please review the last edits I made and the comments made by others after that to see I am telling the truth Thank you

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sockpuppet of blocked User:UC Bill. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 18 May 2009 (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.

You're wasting your own time and ours by continuing to request reviews of this block without providing the information that administrators need to review it. If you continue to make unblock requests that avoid this question, we'll have to disable your ability to use this talk page simply to avoid the continued waste of administrator time. Right now, your behavior and comments are typical of someone who has created a new account to avoid a block on the old one, and that's what I am assuming is the case. Other administrators will probably have reached the same conclusion based on your comments so far. If that isn't the correct conclusion, this is probably your final opportunity to clarify the situation. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to say things that imply this is not your only account. And it is obviously not your only account, or your editing would not have begun the way it began. If you look at WP:SOCK you'll see there are legitimate uses for alternate accounts. This account seems to have been created to make controversial edits in order to keep your main account out of trouble. If that's not the case, we expect you to explain why you are operating multiple accounts and in what way that is consistent with the policy at WP:SOCK. Three admins have told you this is relevant. Three admins have said that your edits are not the only problem, it is also the apparent misuse of multiple accounts. You need to address this issue if you want to be unblocked. Mangojuicetalk 17:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]