Mr. Kruzkin Returns
Block
Mr. Kruzkin Returns (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please unblock this account as well as User:Mr. Kruzkin, or at least one of the two. I have been screwed by liberal hacks who attempt to make Wikipedia conform entirely to their viewpoints. Please see User talk:Mr. Kruzkin to understand what I am talking about. Thank you.
Decline reason:
This particular account has been blocked for block evasion. You have not addressed that. Neither have you addressed the reason for your blocking on the original account. Please see WP:GAB. –xeno (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2008 (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.
Mr. Kruzkin Returns (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have created a new account because it is blatantly obvious that my first account was blocked for an invalid reason. Yes, I made two edits I shouldn't have, as I admitted on my other page, but the majority of the edits were the addition of cited facts. A failure to unblock this account would be a testament to the pervasive liberal bias that has inflicted Wikipedia, as shown by users like User:KeltieMartinFan and others.
Decline reason:
using the term "liberal hack" to describe a colleague. I'm semi-protecting this page to prevent further nonsense requests.Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2008 (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 original account was blocked temporarily for edit warring; if you've said anything to address that, yet, I've missed it. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why on earth would anybody want to unblock you so that you can go on with your unproductive disrupted ways? It’s very clear that you are not on here to make productive edits, but rather create a lot of unwanted controversy. You have repeatedly disobey the rules of Wikipedia, and repeatedly remove any administrative actions put forth by administrators. On top of that, you are now creating numerous sockpuppets to avoid these blocks, and continue with your disrupted ways. You can’t fool any of us. We will block every single screen name and sockpuppet you have until you learn to obey the rules. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This user has not been minding their own business. I am requesting that the administrator who unblocks me block them for a good length of time if not indefinitely. They have been relentlessly harassing me over two edits. Please take action. Thank you. Mr. Kruzkin Returns (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Look at how they vandalized my user page for more information. Thank you. Mr. Kruzkin Returns (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- That wasn't vandalism. It was, in fact, perfectly appropriate. The unblock request was reviewed, and refused. Undoing that refusal was borderline vandalism in itself. If you want your edits to articles on Anderson Cooper and Katie Couric, you have two options: find reliable sources or go to Conservapedia. Or you could always start your own wiki. Bart133 (t) (c) 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)