User talk:GenHoff Klinker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from using the {{unblock}} template to relay abusive messages to administrators or reposting it after having been denied an unblock by more than one admin. If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Hello!

I was User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen, but that account was blocked indefinitely, without sufficient reason for so long block, discussion page was fully protected and my explanation was removed by Ryulong. Check talk page history of User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen.

I think all this was done with violation of many Wikipedia's rules and policies, so I've created this user account.

Thanks for understanding.

Blocked

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk • contribs • block log • [http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_01d8.html).  As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block. You can also email the blocking administrator or any active administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.
--  Netsnipe  ►  17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Creating sockpuppets is the not way to get any sympathy or a second chance. I suggest you either seek arbitration or disappear for a year at least so time can heal old wounds caused by your disruption. As long as the ban stands on your original account, you shall be blocked on sight. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of my first account was unjust. Analyze carefully this case and all edits before Ryulong blocked me indefinitely, please. GenHoff Klinker 17:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW - (...) caused by your disruption. Where is this disruption? Could you point me to it? I am not disruptive. I am always civil and polite. I am always eager to discuss. But Ryulong, instead of discussing, blocked my first account indefinitely, baselessly accused me of lying (violating WP:AGF), removed my explanation from my talk page and protected it. So, I believe, he was disruptive, not me. GenHoff Klinker 17:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

First request for unblock

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "See my explanation above and on the talk page (with history) of my first account."

Decline reason: "You are not permitted to create abusive sockpuppets such as this account. Take your case to unblock-en-l or to the Wikimedia Foundation. However, please note that your continued deliberate violations of Wikipedia policy make an unblock of your sockpuppeteer account extremely unlikely. — Yamla 18:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.