User talk:Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue

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).

Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. I have never heard of voice of britain - it was blocked ages ago, so how do you know anything?

2. Why should you stop me editing, if I was that person anyway? Can't I have accounts in the past (by the way, I have none - I only recently discovered that you can edit this site).

3. Am I allowed to start a new account and begin to edit again? I don't see what I did wrong.

4. If the editing on child sexual abuse was offensive (I don't see why), I will not edit that topic again. I believe in freedom of speech, but I would rather be able to edit.

Decline reason:

Technical findings showed that you were indeed the same person. You are not allowed to contribute under any account as long as your main account, "voice of britain" is blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:33, 8 May 2008 (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.

Discussing with the blocking admin. Mango juice^talk 16:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Dmcdevit has confirmed that this block is based on firm evidence. Mango juice^talk 20:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop playing innocent

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).

Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Change my block justification: I have edited the pedophile articles (and various others) before. However, I was not User:Voice of Britain. I was User:Samantha Pignez. You have blocked the right person for the wrong reason. The fact that this mistake could be elevated to the level of "technical findings" is downright frightening. So don't unblock me. Change the reason. And give your web forensics practises a good looking over.

Decline reason:

No. Pledge to evade a block will not get you unblocked. Besides, there is firm evidence of you being Voice of Britain, but if you are admiting you are a banned editor, then this will not get you unblocked. I don't see any reason to change the block justification - you are blocked, and that is all there is to it. If people want justification, they can come to this page. Also, attacking administrators is also not the way to get unblocked. — Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:30, 10 May 2008 (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.

By the way, I'll continue to edit Wikipedia - but I'll be wise enough not to edit the pedo articles again. It looks like administrators have lost the ability to reason when handing out blocks for editors on these articles. Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting talk page comments

I'm not sure if there's a specific board to report Petra's actions here. It isn't vandalism, but she's still out of line in removing your comments without any evidence to substantiate her assertion that you're a sockpuppet. If she reverts you more than 3 times, she's in violation of WP:3RR (which you should also avoid breaking). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious from outerspace that you're a sockpuppet troll (either AnotherSolipsist's or working in coordination with AnotherSolipsist) all anyone has to do is look at your contribs.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proper venue is probably WP:AN/I. You can open a thread there asking for an admin to look into the situation and at least dish out warnings for aggressive behavior and disruption. Be aware, however, that WP:DRAMA links to the same noticeboard for a reason. Bikasuishin (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we wait for the socks to be blocked by PAW mentors instead of reporting them to AN/I--it's part of WP:DENY and keeping the drama down.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pet: That's for vandalism. Your actions could, if anything be seen as vandalising. Lambton ^T/_C 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from SqueakBox! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

Again, welcome. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

In light of comments by Swatjester, AnotherSolipsist etc, can we just have some calm surrounding this user? If anyone wants to report her, complain at the appropriate forum, and an uninvolved administrator will be happy to look into this. Lambton ^T/_C 16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Bold text[reply]