User talk:Taco Viva

Nothing to see.

April 2014

Your recent editing history at Barbarella (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Betty Logan (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnny Squeaky. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Johnny Squeaky (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. 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. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:54, 20 April 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've read the "evidence", and it's pretty thin - my sig is vaguely similar, and I got involved in a Trivia dispute. Even *if* J.S. is me, there are more than a few editors with more than one account, it's only a "not OK" situation when used to evade or avoid a ban. Such is not the case here, even a cursurary examination of J.S.'s edits show that he'/she is not active. If - *if* - J.S. where me, it would not be a "sockpuppet" because the account is clearly not in use. However, J.S. *is not* me. And, as I said, the evidence of sockpuppetry is beyond thin. At *MOST* I should be blocked for a set period of time such as a week. Taco Viva (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence, including a checkuser confirmation, seems quite solid. You may not create sockpuppet accounts to evade community sanctions. Kuru (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2014 (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.

Reviewing admin: see the SPI report (link above), which was CU-confirmed by Courcelles, not a duck block. BMK (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting my account be unblocked. A permanent block is punitive, unproductive, and mean-spirited. It serves no real purpose, it is not a "learning tool", it is punishment for minor misbehavior which would more appropriately be delt with in a more mature way with a block of some specific but not indefinite length. 71.212.49.65 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please log in and make this request from your account; we do not accept unblock requests from third parties. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:19, 11 May 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting my account be unblocked. A permanent block is punitive, unproductive, and mean-spirited. It serves no real purpose, it is not a "learning tool", it is punishment for minor misbehavior which would more appropriately be delt with in a more mature way with a block of some specific but not indefinite length. Taco Viva (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A permament block is levied on accounts that are created for the purpose of evading community sanctions. If you want to be unblocked you need to request it at User talk:Johnny Squeaky, not here. And as you've been told this repeatedly but keep making the same (in this case, exact same) unblock request, your ability to access the talk page of this account has been revoked. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:07, 12 May 2014 (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.