User talk:KatelynARG
Saving some space
| ||
---|---|---|
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).
KatelynARG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: So now I'm blocked by the admin who was defending me seconds ago. This is how I see it: * An admin welcome me * Users start reverting my edits without reason * I reinstate my good changes * Someone else accuses me of vandalism and being a sock puppet * The first admin who welcomes me defends me * That same admin now blocks me This is ridiculous! --- Katelyn Talk 00:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: None of that gives any ground for an unblock. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2017 (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.
Defense[edit]Okay, time to write my defense. Please copy this into the "Comments by other users" on the vandalism report against me. I'm going to do this in bullet form - responding to each individual issue/accusation in order to keep this as short as possible.
Requesting comments from main involved parties @Sro23:, @Oshwah: and @Yamla:. However, any comments that contain personal attacks and/or further false accusations will be removed on sight. --- Katelyn Talk 01:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Please copy my above defense (the text between the two horizontal lines) to the "Comments by other users" section on the vandal report against me. Once you've done this, just remove the admin help template and this comment - there's no need to reply here. --- Katelyn Talk 01:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The article Fremont Interchange has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing Nomination of Fremont Interchange for deletion[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fremont Interchange is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fremont Interchange until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
|
KatelynARG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Two editors have teamed up to accuse me of being someone else whom I am most definitely not. The only evidence they have provided for this is a "similarity" in userpages, which is wholly insufficient as lots of user pages belonging to different users are similar to each other. The user whom I have been accused of being supposedly "loves bridges". However, let me ask this: How in the world can I have a love for bridges when I was working to remove heavy overcoverage of Portland's bridges from articles? Someone who loves bridges wouldn't do that. IMHO the bridges of Portland have been referenced in way too many places and in way too much detail (heck, one article even referred to them as tourist attractions!) Despite this evidence that I don't love bridges, I've still been blocked and I would like to request that it be overturned. Also, in response to @DoRD: from the SPI page, I was not "abusing a proxy-like service". The range that you blocked was my main Internet connection, and thus now I have to write this from my mobile device. --- Katelyn Talk 4:23 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
I can confirm webhost use until this last unblock request; the service provides webhosting and proxies, and I'm not sure which is the case here (though evidence points to proxy). Coupled with the behavioral evidence – and DoRD is really familiar with the master – I'm declining the request. You can appeal this block to the Arbitration Committee. Katietalk 02:15, 27 August 2017 (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.
- Checkuser needed Adding this template since the block is marked as a CheckUser block. --- Katelyn Talk 21:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)