User talk:Cjwright79

Please leave your comments, questions or concerns below. Most comments will be archived shortly after being posted.

archived talk -- July to November 2006

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gzkn 05:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. You are not prevented from viewing Wikipedia, but please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. This also includes vandalism-only accounts (which means that the user is using Wikipedia for vandalism only). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your sockpuppet unblock request via
This is in reply to your e-mail:
 * -- this is Chris (user:cjwright79).
 * My talk page has been protected for over a month. The request declined block was, according to policy, supposed to be removed two days after it was posted. Presumbly, this would also mean that protection should have been removed, two days after its instantiation.
 * As it stands, I have no way of getting cjwright79 unblocked without creating 'sock' accounts, and yet people like you seem to treat it as something unreasonable to be doing. Why?
 * Perhaps you could advise me what to do, assuming Consumed Crustacean keeps ignoring my requests.
 * Cheers. Chris

I will ask User:Consumed Crustacean to comment on this. Until further notice, do not create any more accounts, or you will certainly remain blocked. Sandstein 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I received a similar email, and would like Consumed Crustacean's opinion before I consider any action, as I'm not familiar with this case. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * His latest socks were User:Vanatos, and User:Theavatar3. has a somewhat older list of socks (confirmed by CheckUser). AN/I Discussions: one, two, three. Consensus was reached to block him indefinitely and keep him blocked; the second discussion was fairly protracted and covered his previous requests to be unblocked, as well as a few socks. He often pleads to have the block lifted claiming that he'll reform, but he still continues trolling as before. If you consider unblocking him, please bring it to AN/I for another discussion. I'm out of patience personally, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. As far as I am concerned, this user is indefinitely banned by administrators' consensus. As such, this request for unblock is denied, and any further socks are, in my opinion, to be blocked on sight. Sandstein 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Looks like a bit of forum-shopping as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect request
An email was sent to me claiming to be this user, I assume that was you. You said:


 * Could you please unlock my user page? I'd like to request to be unblocked. It's been about a month since I was banned (for being a dick). I've learned my lesson.


 * Thanks so much -- 
 * user:cjwright79

I am going to deny this request becuase I feel the reasoning behind the page protection was valid. Your block is indefinite, and you have used the unblock tempalte more than enough to notify admins to your plight. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This request has been sent to mee, too. Same result, support indef block -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Decent" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Decent. Since you had some involvement with the Decent redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ibadibam (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)