User talk:SnrRailways

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for running a bot script on this account without approval. As soon as you demonstrate that you are no longer operating a bot script, you should be unblocked, and you will be welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Under the bot policy, all automated scripts must be approved by the Bot Approvals Group to ensure that they perform safe and useful functions without stressing system resources.

Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have no idea how to set up or use a 'bot script'. I might deserve to be blocked for other reasons, and if I've pissed you off I apologise - but I can set your mind to rest on this one. 'Just another ordinary human. SnrRailways (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were making a series of identical edits very rapidly; it appears very evident that you were using some sort of script to assist with this. Additionally, checkuser confirms that you are also operating User:Wedensambo and User:Hypocaustic in violation of policy. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:34, 24 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not sure how I would defend myself against an accusation of using technology that I've never even encountered, or indeed an accusation of actually being someone else. I don't know what checkuser is either, but whatever it's suggesting, I'm just one editor. The impression I'm getting here is a bit of a posse trying to ride me out of town after disagreeing with or misunderstanding some edits - although that is an observation, not an accusation in return. However, I'm confident that a closer look at the whole spread of edits I've made will show a much wider spread of inputs than the rapid error-correction Hersfold refers to (which was all done manually, but evidently I got a bit too fast for comfort with that). Apologies again for my part in the confusion.SnrRailways (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but at this point you appear to be playing games. I don't buy that three individual editors are making the same rapid-fire edits from the same IP address. At this point, your remaining option is to post an unblock request on your primary account, display some personal integrity and honesty, and please stop with the passive-aggressive accusations. Kuru (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2012 (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.