User talk:LuLu3

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).

LuLu3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

enough time has passed. I have been blocked for over six months. I think the point has been made and I would really appreciate a second chance. Thanks!

Decline reason:

Vandalism through sockpuppetry continues by this user. Besides, this account has never been used for any productive editing. — NoSeptember 11:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

I've contacted the blocking admin for comment; in the meantime, please bear with us, and thank you for your patience. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - second chance to do what? This is an obvious sock account with no useful edits. Rklawton 02:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not a sock account. I admit that I did make some inappropriate edits, but I have been banned for 6 months so far, and I think that another chance is warranted. LuLu3 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that some of the accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LuLu3 have been used in the past month; considering that, how can I take your claim of having been "good" for six months at face value? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that these are "suspected sock puppets". You have my word that this is the ony account I have ever used. LuLu3 23:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at your edit history dispels that notion at a glance. Novice users wouldn't have a clue about blanking a user's archive page - let alone do it as a first edit. Rklawton 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I've seen at least one sockpuppet requesting unblocking on the same grounds, following the decline on this unblock request; that brings the supposed good faith second chance this user is asking for into serious question. You had a second chance. And a third, and a fourth. Continued lies aren't going to get you another one. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that Lucille Ball article was being vandalized long before I registered for Wikipedia. You have no proof that I am the vandal, you are just assuming so. It is much easier to assume, that to investigate the truth. LuLu3 03:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not getting unblocked.[edit]

You are not getting unblocked, and I am requesting this talkpage to be fully protected, as you are harrassing admins and abusing the right to edit this page. Meateater 10:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]