User talk:Stormy Chamber

Plea for removal of ban

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I personally apologose for my actions.Being new to wikipedia i never thought that sockpupetting was as serious as it appeared and I therefore make no questioning of my ban but humbly request that on compassionate geounds it be removed. I understand my error and would never do so again Mahveotm (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Maybe you didn't fully understand Wikipedia's socking rules, but you surely knew that using multiple accounts to pretend to be several different people and try to stack an AFD !vote was dishonest and deceitful - so don't try playing the innocent "I didn't know it was against the rules" card. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2016 (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.

• While blocked you are not allowed to remove declined unblock requests, and so I have restored the one above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I admit it is against the rule and against all morals for me to create multiple accounts (sockpupetting) and I terribly regret my actions. But once more I plead to be given a chance to do what I love most editing wikipedia as an administrator whom you are, you can see from previous edits apart from my sockpupetting issue that I've really edited positively. So all I ask now is a chance to be able to edit again you are free to place me on all sort of checks to see I don't do that again but please I won't do that again. You've got my word, its a promise.

Decline reason:

i suggest the WP:Standard offer in this case. Please read through and follow with the requirements of it. Your behavior was inappropriate and I don't think unblocking you at the moment is a net gain. only (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2016 (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 user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I've finally waited and eagerly expects to get back to get during on Wikipedia. regrets my action and have really learnt my lesson Mahveotm (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I've finally waited and eagerly expects to get back to get during on Wikipedia. regrets my action and have really learnt my lesson [[User:Mahveotm|Mahveotm]] ([[User talk:Mahveotm#top|talk]]) 14:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've finally waited and eagerly expects to get back to get during on Wikipedia. regrets my action and have really learnt my lesson [[User:Mahveotm|Mahveotm]] ([[User talk:Mahveotm#top|talk]]) 14:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've finally waited and eagerly expects to get back to get during on Wikipedia. regrets my action and have really learnt my lesson [[User:Mahveotm|Mahveotm]] ([[User talk:Mahveotm#top|talk]]) 14:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• I have posted at User talk:Bbb23, inviting the blocking administrator to express an opinion. Boing! said Zebedee and Only, who reviewed your earlier unblock requests, may also like to comment. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  I think I'd be happy with an unblock now - lesson learned and all that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for the heads up, JamesBWatson. If administrators think Mahveotm should be given another chance to be a productive contributor, I have no objection.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)