Mully Ponchkin
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed
edit
Mully Ponchkin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked without discussion and without being informed. According to the record in my "Block log" the reason for the block is: "Block evasion: WP:DUCK". There is no evidence provided to support either of these allegations. All I can assume is that the blocking administrator has made some false assumptions based on the comments I added to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention discussion. At the time of making those comments I was not blocked under any of my legitimate account names, the blocks that had been erroneously imposed previously had since been recognised as mistakes and undone. I was a block-free editor. Hence the pretence of the reason, "Block evasion", is simply untrue. I can quite understand why the blocking administrator jumped to that conclusion, that kind of behavior was precisely part of the point I was making in the discussion. But I hope the reviewer of this will see that the only possible support of this block were dreamt-up in the head of the blocking administrator in a, likely sub-conscious, attempt to pacify his conscience over his hastily formed pre-conceptions about my motives. The only rational reason, in the mind of the blocking administrator, for my actions was that I was a sock. He failed to consider the other, equally rational alternatives, including the actual reason that I was not a sock and that I was offering an opinion (which he very clearly disapproved of, hence a need to rationalise his reaction in such a way) to the debate. Mully Ponchkin (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You're joking, right? There is no equally rational alternative. It is absolutely, 100% unbelievable that an editors very first edit will be to an obscure WikiProject focused on internal Wikipedia matters. You are obviously an experienced user, either evading scrutiny (WP:SOCK), trying to prop up a particular point in an argument (i.e., voting twice, also covered under WP:SOCK), or are evading a block. Even your comment has a few telltale signs that you're not a new editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2012 (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.
This blocked user is asking that the review of his or her block be reviewed
edit Mully Ponchkin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It would appear from the decline reason given by User:Qwyrxian above, that they did not read either the block reason or the evidence that I gave showing that the block reason was founded on false assumptions. Qwyrxian seems to have formed the opinion that I had, somewhere, claimed to be a new editor. It is clear from the evidence I gave above, referring to these comments that I had been open and honest about my multiple accounts. Each of those accounts, and this one, comply entirely with WP:Multiple Accounts. And each of the previous erroneous blocks, as I state above, were eventually reversed and recognised to mistaken. Why would I create an account, explain how I had been blocked, and not expect to be blocked again otherwise? That doesn't make any sense at all. At the time this block that I am now appealing against (again) was made I had multiple legitimate accounts and none of them was blocked. Let me restate: I am not, have not and do not claim to be a new editor, so the decline reason given above does not make any sense at all. Mully Ponchkin (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Obvious troll is obvious. Max Semenik (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2012 (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.