MorningSunBright

Dog

May I suggest that you reduce the amount of wp:linking you are doing? For example, in your recent changes to Dog, you linked Europe six times (and European several more). See our Manual of Style section on this, at MOS:REPEATLINK. (I might also suggest that the material you added could be more suited for Origin of the domestic dog.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, congratulations. This just got you blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Jpgordon:!

Hey, my 9 year old daughter used my computer and vandalized my user talk page while I was going to the bathroom while I trying to clean up my talkpage by deleting old comments and threads that had already been resolved. The vandalism was up for only less than a minute before I deleted the vandalized comments, along with the other comments.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

My 9 year old daughter used my computer and vandalized my user talk page while I was going to the bathroom while I trying to clean up my talkpage by deleting old comments and threads that had already been resolved. The vandalism was up for only less than a minute before I deleted the vandalized comment, along with the other comments. I fixed the vandalism on my own, but then User:Jpgorden blocked me after I had already corrected the vandalism at 00:11, 16 August 2019‎.

Decline reason:

Whether that's plausible or not, the fact remains that if you cannot secure your account, it is compromised. We do not unblock compromised accounts. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:37, 16 August 2019 (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.

I'm truly sorry

but our standard response to this sort of thing is to advise reading WP:brother and WP:compromised. I'll ping @Jpgordon: to see if he thinks comparing your past edit history with the vandalism makes your story sound plausible, but historically we decline to unblock compromised accounts.-- Dlohcierekim 03:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not implausible; this user's edits have been a bit edit-warry, but they appear to be in good faith. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:01, 16 August 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

As previously mentioned I was blocked by Jpgordon for a WP:disruptive editing made on my user talk page by someone who wasn't me. My request for an unblock was denied due to WP:compromised. Wikipedia rules states in WP:disruptive editing that "is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." Both WP:disruptive editing and WP:Vandalism that clearly state that sufficient warning must be given before an indefinite block. Neither of which was given. The vandalism on my talk page was only up for a brief period of time, before I corrected it on my own; but I was blocked after I had already fixed my user page without warning. WP:Compromised states, "If you state in your request that the edits that led to your block were made by someone else who accessed your account..." Edits being plural clearly implies that compromised accounts should show a pattern of disruptive editing, neither of which is present in the contributions I have made to Wikipedia. If I take measures to ensure that the disruptive edits made by my account will not happen a second time, there should be no reason why I should still continue to be indefinitely blocked. MorningSunBright (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No. The intention of WP:COMPROMISED is that compromised accounts are not unblocked. Your account was compromised and we cannot tell if the original owner has regained control of the account. Yamla (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2019 (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.

 Administrator note MorningSunBright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked 2019-08-16T00:12:18 for disruption after edit warring on Origin of the domestic dog. As user claimed compromised, was allowed to edit as StopPrejudiceNow. This name was found to be unsuitable, so she renamed to LightFromABrightStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). She resumed edit warring on Origin of the domestic dog was final warned by me. She then began editing as CherryBlossomsInTheNight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and edit warred yet again on (you guessed it) Origin of the domestic dog. Check user proved fruitful, and both LightFromABrightStar and CherryBlossomsInTheNight were blocked for socking. Given user's recalcitrance and willingness to violate Wikipedia policy to continue edit warring, I would recommend against unblocking.-- Deepfriedokra 22:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)