User talk:Lifebringer6211

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:57, 22 December 2015 (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).

Lifebringer6211 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sure you see many examples of when blaming vandalism on a little brother is used; that is not what I'm doing here. For one, there was no vandalism involved, no POV pushing, nothing like that. All I did was revert an edit that reverted edits made by Everton61 which modified dates of when a trial occurred. I assumed his dates were valid as there was no possibility that the current dates could be valid (since they say the trial occurred in the past, when it has yet to occur). Fairly enough, my edits were then reverted as well, as I didn't add sources (expected others to do the work for me, I'll admit). But I was just trying to make a positive contributions. Then this editor decided to block my wikipedia account for being a sock puppet account, which I honestly don't care too much about, but for the sake of justice, I'd like this to be unblocked please. I have a strong interest in Canadian health policy since a lot of my family members are doctors in BC, and I believe I can continue to make positive contributions. There was no vandalism, the edit over which this started is here. And I do recall reading this in an article on the newspaper, so sources that show this to be true do exist somewhere. While I'm sure I must have committed some sort of wikipedia faux-pas in reverting the editor's changes like I did (though they were impossible), I don't believe I deserve to be blocked. Update: here are two sources which confirm my edits source1, source2 Lifebringer6211 (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is one of a group of several accounts which have been used in conjunction with one another for the purpose of promoting a point of view. Whether they have been operated by one person or by a pair of brothers makes very little difference. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2016 (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.