AFA pony

Talking to me

Hey, I will respond where you talk to me. That means here, or wherever. I will follow you around.

Please start a new section for each new topic.

(Did I mention that I'm a puppet?)~AFA_pony. 11:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The_Don_College Deletion

The prod tag was added to the article on May 10th, citing a lack of notability. No major changes were added to the article after the prod tag was added that would have asserted notability, so I deleted it as an expired prod. If you feel that the article should stay, perhaps you could re-write the article off Wikipedia and re-create the article later with proper assertion of notability. Let me know if you have any more questions. Have a great day and happy editing! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Appealing an illegitimate block...

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This account was blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:AFA. It is correct that this account is run by the same person as the AFA account. However, the only way that you would know this is from the claim made by this account... (AFA not having edited since 4/May[5], and this account not starting to edit until 9/May[6].) Anyway, regardless, this is a legitimate sockpuppet, made for reasons of security (as allowed Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses_of_multiple_accounts). Contrary to Hesperian's claim that this account was made to abuse people (let alone to do it by "avoiding the consequences", surely I would have a) picked a different username (and not linked to the main account in my signature) and b) actually abused people! (if you examine the contributions [7] you'll notice that I've actually engaged in constructive editing with this account). As well, he claims that my main account is used to for "indiscriminately abusing people". Again, if you notice the actual evidence (namely the contributions of that account [8]), you'll notice this is a fabrication by this administrator.

This particular admin seems to have a problem with the rules as well. He blocked the main account User_talk:AFA#Blocked as a punishment, in direct conflict with the blocking policy "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users."

Regardless, the blocking of my main account for a month didn't affect me (as I'm still not at a network I trust), and only now has this block affect me.

Summary, I wish to have this account unblocked (and preferably Hesperian removed as an admin, but I can't have everything) as it is a legitimate user account created for legitimate purposes (namely security).~AFA pony. 18:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This was a legitimate block, this account edited AFA (talk · contribs) immediately after AFA had been blocked by User:Durova dif for WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT issues, in a direct contravention of WP:SOCK. AFA block was only extended to 1 month and has since expired — Gnangarra 00:38, 9 July 2007 (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.

The block by Durova was on 30/March. For 24 hours. [1]. This account did not start editing until May. More then a month after that block. So tell me how that block has anything to do with this user? (Especially as that block was a point in and of itself.) So again, I request that this user be unblocked because it is a legitimate sock puppet, it is obvious that it is a sock puppet and so on (as per the policies over at WP:SOCK[2]).

It hasn't done anything in violation of the sock policy, it didn't do what it was alleged to have done (namely being abusive) and there is no legitimate reason for it to be blocked. Once more, please unblock this account. ~AFA pony. 10:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing admins please see

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive80#Please review
2. this old version of User:AFA pony
3. User_talk:AFA#Blocked

Hesperian 12:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)