User talk:SixtyNineSixtySix

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SixtyNineSixtySix, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi SixtyNineSixtySix! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been blocked

I see you should currently be blocked but somehow they've forgotten to. Anyway could you just leave off the heat thank you, perhaps stop editing for a day voluntarily, and try and be a bit more constructive in your comments,i.e. try and find ways forwards rather than going on about injustices. Dmcq (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Cailil ^talk 23:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your considerable knowledge of editors in the WP:TROUBLES area, and the coinciding lack of use of this account except for 3 instances (reverting User:HighKing[1] and other editors from "the other side"[2][3][4]) of editing/commenting on WP:TROUBLES issues. All this indicates that this account is being used to evade scrutiny or purely for flamebaiting thus breach WP:SOCK, WP:DE and WP:BATTLE. You may appeal this block as above but I will ~~not~~ remind you that wikipedia is not a battleground--Cailil ^talk 23:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally for any reviewing sysops please see User talk:Cartoon Buffoon and User_talk:Zoombox21--Cailil ^talk 23:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to check-user results [5] SixtyNineSixtySix is unrelated to those two (which are the same person). Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not a sock. I just commented at ANE; is that not allowed for someone with just a few edits? I admit to making provocative, unhelpful remarks at ANE and earlier, and I shouldn't have done so, so I apologise. I do watch out on the Irish articles and know what's going on. I'll tone it right down from now on and concentrate on editing articles, but for the moment I wouldn't edit much anyway. Please unblock. SixtyNineSixtySix (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have just read a fairly large sample of your edits. Within a minute it was glaringly obvious that this account is a sockpuppet, and within three minutes it was clear that it is a purely disruptive account, indulging in a whole string of different types of unconstructive editing. Unblocking would not benefit the project at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2013 (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.