User talk:Promotional Attack

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).

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

Request reason:

I have no memory of doing anything wrong. Is someone or something trying to set me up? It was for 'sockpuppetry', and I wasn't given any advanced notice about an investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promotional Attack (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 February 2016‎

Decline reason:

I've ran a checkuser, and confirm the findings of the blocking admin. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2016 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I've had a discussion with an administrator about why I was blocked, and I was associated with IP addresses - I found out that these addresses are in publicly shared places. I also believe that my previous one was denied in error as they have gotten themselves blocked from editing by other people, which is why I am an associate. Can we discuss this issue aswell before accepting or denying? Thanks. Promotional Attack (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, it is clear that you, yourself, have been making the edits in question. —DoRD (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2016 (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.

I really do not understand what's going on here! Promotional Attack (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FINE I ADMIT IT I AM A SOCKPUPPETEER Promotional Attack (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I extended your block to indefinite. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just mad because I don't have a clue why I was blocked for using a shared IP that is commonly used for vandalism and that I'm being given the blame for it. Promotional Attack (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I publicly apologize to Wikipedia, its administrators and its editors on the following accounts - 1: Using sockpuppets. I don't know how to make it neater and cleaner to read, but yes, I admit to using a sockpuppet IP address. I admit trying to mask it to make it not look like a sockpuppet, but I got caught red handed, and now I'm blocked there's nothing to do but admit it and apologize. I only wish for a second chance on this wiki. I have been editing quite well and I enjoyed it. 2: Wasting administrator's time. I then made requests as if I didn't do anything wrong, but now the punishments keep getting more harsh and there's nothing left to do but submit. I'm sorry to all administrators involved in this incident, and I will vow on all my accounts and even vow on the banning policy that I will not do this again. I only ask for a second chance on this wiki. I then made remarks at the talk page to try and get the incident resolved in a different way including the use of all-capitals, but this has only gone unsuccessful. I am sorry. I really do mean it. I am sorry for making multiple unblock requests aswell, as this also wastes time and CheckUser did not give in. I am very sorry about this. I confess to using the IP to cause disruption but not cause collateral damage. It isn't shared. It's a home address. Please forgive me on this matter. Final note. I would only like to say sorry, I really am sorry for all of this in the past happenings, and I only wish for another chance to carry on editing. If I do it again, punish me as harsh as you wish. Refer me to the Arbitration Committee for banning if I do anything like this again. I am serious. I swear on all of this that I won't do it again. I do not wish to waste further time and apologize for writing this as it may have frustrated you. Thank you. I also apologize for removing my previous unblock messages. Promotional Attack (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Account is globally locked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2016 (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.

I've restored your previous unblock requests. These must remain while you request a new one. only (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Promotional Attack (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Promotak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I would also wish to have my name changed, as I feel like it violates the username policy. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Account is globally locked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we unblock someone who is obviously a sock, and admits it? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are sockpuppets grounds for bans, even for a first offense? I stopped the vandalism immediately before I realised that I was actually starting to enjoy editing on Wikipedia, but the IP was banned soon after and I got caught in the CheckUser. I'm just apologising, that's all. Promotional Attack (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can do whatever you want to me if I do anything like it again. I'm apologizing as I read in the blocking policy. I only wish for a second chance because I just started hunting down vandalism. I'm sorry, that's all. Promotional Attack (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, may I discuss the block with the blocking ArbCom administrator? Thanks. Promotional Attack (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Globally locked

I have posted this message to notify any administrator that this user has been globally blocked from all Wikimedia projects by a Meta Wiki steward. I have posted this message here as this user has been actively using their talk page. Thank you. XCONZ (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creator of Wikipedia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Creator of Wikipedia. Since you had some involvement with the Creator of Wikipedia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst✈ 03:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]