User talk:Hafwyn Alkrin

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Presumably a case of mistaken identity. No multiple accounts from this noted Welsh ailurophile . I would appreciate it if you could unblock me fairly swiftly because I had planned to upload a whole clutch of art kittens to Commons to send out as festive kitty presents. I have not really had time to get into my account and had planned to over the holiday season. It was me who uploaded Carl Kahler's monumental ode to catdom, which I put on Sagaciousphil's Talk page who is going through a bit of a rough patch. Surely that did not lead to this block? It seems so but why ever so? No idea who this Crisco chappy is (he sounds a bit slippery to me {{ho ho}}), but he is really barking right up the wrong tree on this one. It is a real shame because Sagacious really does need support right now and she does fantastic work. Hafwyn Alkrin (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

And a brand-new editor would know about Sagaciusphil's need of support because...? Huon (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2015 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Well that is not really your business is it, Huon? So this is about my support of Sagaciousphil, is it not? I really can not see what my fault is. There is a message on her page saying she wants support. I put an image I took the trouble of uploading (it was immediately voted a "Featured Picture" on Wikipedia) on her talk page which I knew would amuse her with the message "Cheer up" and I was blocked for my trouble. What is that about for heaven's sake? It strikes me actually as an attack on Sagaciousphil, as if you do not want her supporters to rally around her. Why the multiple accounts charge? Do you imagine that I am deliberately creating accounts so that I can send her support? Nonsense. That image is am image I had planned to send as a festive message to several Wikipedia editors I either know personally or know of though my work, which is an off-wiki affair no business of yours at all. Will you please now unblock my account directly.

Decline reason:

Clearly WP:NOTHERE in addition to the socking issue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:41, 23 December 2015 (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.

In reply to OhNoitsJamie, there is no "socking" issue here. Regarding the accusation of bad faith (WP:NOTHERE), I can not at all see why you are so clear in your mind about that (I thought assuming good faith was a tenet of the community). That is to say, other than set up my User page (a small satire by the way), I have made a single edit on Wikipedia and that was to support another editor, whose edits I indeed know and admire, in a friendly and constructive way. I have already explained that I have limited time for Wikipedia. That editor was one of a group I had planned to introduce myself to over Christmas. Your "clear" assumption of bad faith strikes me as quite unmerited.

Needless to say I am not very pleased about that. But what disturbs me now are the implications of cultism. One makes a friendly approach to an editor and one is rebuffed by the cult. That is an issue arising that I sense bears examination. I shall look into other mechanisms for reversing this block and raising this (new) issue within Wikipedia. Failing that I shall raise the issue with whatever regulatory body I can find competent to deal with it. Perhaps you can advise. Hafwyn Alkrin (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You and your advisers are urged to pursue the matter and all of its ancillaries avenues and tributaries with the Wikipedia Department of No One Cares. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]