Please can I ask you not to do that. Unless there is evidence of unduecanvassing there is no need for those banners.Pedro : Chat 11:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off. The chances that two independent candidates are going to use roughly similar forums, that have no releavnce to Wikipedia anyway, are miniscule. If you can provide direct evidence for canvassing bring it up on the RFA's respective talk pages.Don't re-add those banners without discussion or you will beblocked fordisruption to cause a point.Pedro : Chat 11:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at thewelcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are consideredvandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may beblocked from editing without further warning. Please stop. Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others.Pedro : Chat 11:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged the Cleveland Street scandal article as disputed. You did not indicate a dispute in the talk page. What's your dispute? ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez^{Get to know me!} /_{Talk to me!}←at≈:→08:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarilyblocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note thatvandalism (including page blanking or addition ofrandom text),spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations,personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerningneutral point of view andbiographies of living persons will not be tolerated. --zzuuzz^(talk)08:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Yes, I am a meatpuppet ofUser:Pigsonthewing and I will stop the silly edit-warring over tags and discuss at the talk page. If I do wrong again, then you can discuss me atWP:AN. I am repetant enough to stop.

Decline reason:

Are you certain that you are ameatpuppet? That would mean an indefinite block, not an unblocking of your account. I suggest that you wait out your 24 hour block, then edit more constructively. —FisherQueen (talk ·contribs)13:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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 anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Just because I am a meatpuppet ofUser:Pigsonthewing does not mean I will be one in the future. I was recruited here by Pigsonthewing, but it doesn't mean I'll permanently be his meatpuppet. Discuss this atWP:AN orWP:ANI as a wider forum.

Decline reason:

Per arbcom ruling:[1] there is no distinction made between one person using multiple accounts or one person getting a second person to edit on their behalf, especially if the difference between the two cannot be distinguised from the editing history of the two accounts. We have no proof you are a different person, and your edit history indicates that either you are the same person, or you are two people acting as the same person. Regardless, we are under no obligation to unblock this account, as it has been used to deceive and disrupt, and we have no concrete assurances that this will stop in the future. Indeed, since its entire edit history has been one of disruption, all availible evidence seems to indicate otherwise. —Jayron32.talk.contribs17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.

• Note to reviewing editors: this is the same person asUser:Walmwutter andUser:Tomherrell, and those accounts need to be considered as well. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately for you Alkwingle, the decision to block you was made before you declared your meatpuppetry. Most disruption-only meatpuppet accounts are blocked indefinitely and the user banned. Would you perhaps be interested in picking one account to edit with constructively and without disruption, or shall we just indef you now and be done with it? The wider forum thing you mentioned just isn't going to happen. --zzuuzz^(talk)19:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]