Blocked
editIt is apparent that you are disrupting Wikipedia and its processes, so you have been blocked indefinitely. To appeal this block, please use the {{unblock}} template. —Kurykh 00:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Tezza2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Correct AfD procedure was followed and nomination was valid. User:TenPoundHammer (who is NOT an admin) unilaterally removed a valid AfD nom without discussion in clear violation of the instruction "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settle". Tezza2 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Proven sockpuppetry in this case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:52, 7 August 2007 (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.
- Sorry I didn't make it clear. Please actually provide a reason. You may do so by replacing the currect {{unblock}} with {{unblock|your reason here}}. —Kurykh 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The issue is settled. As keep. Nominating ad nauseam will not change that. You are now gaming the system, or at least, trying to game the system. —Kurykh 00:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It is NOT settled. If it was then the article would have been cleaned up. No attempt whatsoever has been made to cleanup, therefore the nom is valid. It was invalid for User:TenPoundHammer to close a valid nom. Tezza2 00:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is settled in the viewpoint of AfD and the Wikipedia community it represents. You do not have the right to repetiitvely nominate it for deletion as you see fit. Doing so is disruption and is a blockable offense. —Kurykh 00:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)