User talk:SgtAvestrand1956

You have been blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing on Physician assistant: repeated undo/redo of edits, lack of edit summaries, and the fact that you have been blocked for 3RR before all contributed to this decision. Any further (post-block) unproductive editing from you on this article will result in a topic ban. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been extended to a week for your using the account User:TheMedicated as a sockpuppet to continue your disruptive editing during your block. You still have the ability to edit this talk page, but you may not use it to blank this warning until the duration of your block has expired. Further disruption will result in an indefinite block. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated sockpuppetry and block evasion. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of SgtAvestrand1956

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).

SgtAvestrand1956 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm officially swearing off sockpuppetry and disruptive editng, and pleading for an unblock; please consider an unblock of [[1]]

Decline reason:

You were just blocked a few days ago. Take some time off and try again. Ricky81682 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2009 (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.

Comment from blocking admin: this is the diff that prompted this post.

SgtAvestrand1956, please list all the accounts you have previously used as sockpuppets on Wikipedia. Please also explain, based on your reading of WP:BRD and related editing courtesy documents, how you will resolve any sunsequent content disuputes with other editors. Jclemens (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qelkvnap

Qelknap

Nhev114

Axisguy

YaleMed2001

TheMedicated

Would only make the edits keeping them focused. Would get the views of those who comment on my edit, and compromise. Would be clear about when I'm compromising and expect others to compromise but do not expect it to be totally even; Would discuss on my edit summaries, editing constructively with reliable sources, and apply generally valid sourced edits. If others editors don't want to its alright, but would sure offer; if they accept the change history would demonstrate other editors agree; this prevents me from falling afoul of 3RR. Would assume revision not be the final. Would find consensus, and let them settle. It would give editors a point to build from.SgtAvestrand1956 (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2009 (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).

SgtAvestrand1956 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Qelkvnap Qelknap Nhev114 Axisguy YaleMed2001 TheMedicated Would only make the edits keeping them focused. Would get the views of those who comment on my edit, and compromise. Would be clear about when I'm compromising and expect others to compromise but do not expect it to be totally even; Would discuss on my edit summaries, editing constructively with reliable sources, and apply generally valid sourced edits. If others editors don't want to its alright, but would sure offer; if they accept the change history would demonstrate other editors agree; this prevents me from falling afoul of 3RR. Would assume revision not be the final. Would find consensus, and let them settle. It would give editors a point to build from.SgtAvestrand1956 (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per Kevin below, it is quite clear you are a VERY active sockmaster, and the half dozen or so socks you list above is no where near a full allocution of your abuses. Furthermore, given the level of your disruption and your sockpuppetry, you should probably take the Wikipedia:Standard offer and take a few months where you create NO sockpuppets and abide by the terms of your block. If you do so, then it will be easier to accept that you have truly reformed and intend to abide bu Wikipedia policies. Jayron32 05:45, 15 August 2009 (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.

For info, there is a rather longer sock list here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrse/Archive. Kevin (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]