W--df--n

Sockpuppetry

Another sock blocked. You still don't get it, and still fail to take responsibility for your own actions.

First, socks being used to evade a block can be reverted immediately, no questions asked (per Wikipedia policy). Using a sock to evade a block also results in an immediate block (again, per Wikipedia policy). You are the only one wasting effort here, reverting and blocking take very few keystrokes.

You seem to have the misconception that the prior content dispute and the reverts in the article somehow justifies your action. They do not, and are completely irrelevant. You were harassing another user over the warning - and continued after being warned twice to stop. Your block is 100% justified (and has been endorsed by multiple admins - one of those eventually revoked your talk page privileges due to your abuse of that privileges). Socking then just resulted in another admin extending the block to be indefinite.

Repeating your claims (which have been reviewed by multiple admins already) do not make your claims true.

Your only legitimate options under Wikipedia policy that will not result in immediate blocks and reverts are either:

• to only use your original account (as you previously acknowledged reading, I restored those talk page privileges).
• to use Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System - there is a large, clearly marked link on that page to "Submit a block appeal".

With either of those options, you are strongly encouraged to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Failure to acknowledge you understand the reasons for the block will be unlikely to result an account being unblocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)