220.236.117.40

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).

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

---

Request reason:

All the edits I made last night were to clean up and bring up to date some pages of data relating to the 2022 National Rugby League season and in none of then contained previously aforementioned "original research". In addition no ban evasion took place as I waited for the 2 week block to expire, which it did. 220.236.117.40 (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your account is still blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2022 (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 may not remove the above message while this IP is blocked. If you remove it again, your talk page access will be revoked. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

So you're allowed to get away with vandalism because why? You're an admin? You today deleted factual edits on the regular pages which is grounds for vandalism and a ban. Once again misuse of an administrative position and further proof of what a hypocrite you are.

Per WP:BLOCKEVASION: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule."

I will engage in no further discussion of this matter at IP talk pages. I see that your original account, CodyCruickshank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has had its talk page access revoked. You will have to make any further appeals through WP:UTRS. Any further misuse of an IP talk page is grounds for the IP to have talk-page access revoked. —C.Fred (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Then you are to have no further involvement with my account whatsoever. You admitted through your own two lips that I make good edits and are too stubborn to admit to your own faults. It's not my problem that you can't take an ounce of criticism. 220.236.117.40 (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You can now use WP:UTRS to request an unblock from your primary account. Talk page access here is revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If user winds up at UTRS, please contact me before unblocking. Thanks Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Jumped the gun

(cross posting from Meta:User talk:Deepfriedokra)

That is utter nonsense. You have been told repeatedly to address the edit warring and personal attacks. That means describing what to do in a WP:content dispute. The answer does not involve edit warring and personal attacks. You have spent the last five years justifying your actions and trying to convince others that your edits were fantastic and wonderful. It does not matter how wonderful you think your edits are. Every edit warrior thinks they are right. Edit warring is wrong no matter how right you think you are. You could have addressed these problems five years ago' instead of evading your block and showing the same "when I'm right, and nothing else matters" attitude. I explained all this in the last UTRS decline-- where you kept trying to justify your actions, including the edit warring.

As you've connected this account with this IP on Wikipedia and on Meta, I can post this here. This quote tells me who you really are and what your attitude really is. "And the actual fact remains that you can't and won't get rid of me. So take as many smug pot shots at me as you like. Hypocrite, "

By the way, you did not owe me an apology, you have not injured me in the slightest. Maybe C. Fred, but not me.Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

---