Smokinswede

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Smokinswede) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because Slang term for smoking Cannabis (drug). If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. Secret ^account 23:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it has become apparent that it is being used only for vandalism. Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Danger (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

My username has nothing to do with smoking cannabis; it's a reference to me being part Swedish and smokin' hot. Smokinswede (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Only one request at a time please. Note that you can post on this page without using the {{unblock}} template. See also my comment below. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:20, 12 October 2011 (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.

{{unblock | reason=I'm also a bit confused as to why I'm being accused of vandalism. I haven't disturbed, manipulated, or even contributed to anything as of yet. This accusation perplexes me and I request that the block be removed. [[User:Smokinswede|Smokinswede]] ([[User talk:Smokinswede#top|talk]]) 06:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)}} I don't see any vandalism in your contributions - but maybe I'm missing something. The username violation would be sufficient to block all by itself, but I'm not sold on that either. I'll ask the blocking admin to doublecheck. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"The username violation would be sufficient to block all by itself"? Huh? There is nothing in the username policy that says we have to block names that reference the use of recreational drugs; I also find the user's explanation of the name at least defensible, if not outright plausible.

By your reading of the policy, we would have to block User:Bongwarrior as well. Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No no no - I meant that a violation of the username policy was sufficient to block. I made no comment on whether this username was itself such a violation - and, since I had asked the blocking admin for clarification on the vandalism issue, did not think it appropriate to comment on the username as such. For the record, the username itself doesn't bother me - but there may be other issues, which was why I asked about it. Sorry for the confusion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have unblocked this account. The alleged username violation, even if it meant what the blocking admin thought it did, is not a violation at all. This was a terrible block and never should have happened, and I apologize on behalf of my overzealous colleagues that you were treated so shabbily. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize as well. My colleagues above are exactly right and there's no excuse for what I did. Regretfully, Danger (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)