User talk:Blunt hiker

September 2019[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help!) 19:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

You're shitting me right? This is a joke? I came here to ask about some changes to AWB, on the appropriate talk page and in a calm and polite manner and you are blocking me indefinitely and without so much as a warning for mentioning the name of a banned editor? Does that seem even remotely reasonable to you? Because if it does then you have no business being an admin. Thank you very much for showing me why I need to stick to editing Fandom and Gamepedia and not Wikipedia. If you are in the habit of indefinitely banning people for asking reasonable questions, then you are the one that's not here to build an encyclopedia. For what it's worth, I have never had 1 bad interaction with this banned user on Fandom. They have ALWAYS been helpful and polite, unlike you. PS, I'm going to ping the AWB devs so they can see this nonsense.Blunt hiker (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The unblock request is declined because it does not contain a reason for the requested unblock. While text has been placed in the "Request reason" field, it is in the form of a question to the blocking admin about whether the block was jocular in nature, followed by an oration on the manners of said admin, and a declaration that the requester will "stick to editing Fandom and Gamepedia and not Wikipedia". Interrogatories and monologues are best limited to a section of the Talk page outside the unblock template.
A new unblock request is permissible, however, it is recommended (albeit not required) WP:GAPB be read first in order to avoid a perfunctory or procedural decline. Chetsford (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Reedy, Rjwilmsi, and Magioladitis: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blunt hiker (talk • contribs)

See WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY. When you come here to advocate for a very very banned troll, and you have to obfuscate the usernames because the edit filter prevents you from naming them, you're not going to get much in the way of assumptions of good faith. However, posted at WP:ANI for review. Guy (help!) 10:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]