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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will tell the truth. The whole truth. Nothing But the truth. I am Bialytock&Bloom. I was unaware of the laws on sockpuppetry, and realize that what I did it completely wrong. I created the new account because I was worried editors would only see me as "S.S. Miami" and label me as "unreliable". Bialytock&Bloom gave me a new start, and I, if I say so myself, successfully expanded several articles. I am truly sorry for my actions. However, if I am unblocked, I would like "Bialytock&Bloom" to be unblocked as well, as that account has the pages I edit a lot on it's watchlist. You can delete this "S.S. Miami" account, as I'd rather be Bialytock&Bloom. After the deletion of this account and the unblocking of the other account, if I am found guilty of sockpuppetry again, I will gladly and willingly except any punishments you wish to inflict. I would like to just point out that I never used the two accounts with any malicious intent (ie: winning debates, etc.)

Decline reason:

The sockpuppetry itself is bad enough, but after the continued lies at User talk:Bialytock&Bloom, I see no reason to assume good faith anymore and cannot endorse the unblock of this account or any of its sockpuppets (and certainly not both). --Kinu ^t/_c 20:56, 4 May 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I think I've provided a reasonable "deal", or whatever you wish to call it. You just delete S.S. Miami, unblock Bialytock&Bloom, and it's no longer sockpuppetry. I'm basically telling you to stop sockpuppetry. I would like to point out again that I never used the two accounts with any malicious intent and am truly sorry for my actions.

Decline reason:

Not a chance, especially since you've insisted that you'll attempt to use your talk page to continue to evade your block. -- Atama頭 23:01, 4 May 2011 (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.

As I have already declined one unblock request, I will leave the current one to another administrator, but I will comment. What I see is this: you broke copyright policies using this account, created another account, continued the same type of behavior there, and attempted to lie your way out of it after getting caught until just recently. Why should we assume good faith again? Blocking both accounts protects the encyclopedia from further violations of copyright policy... a policy which you apparently have no intention of following, based on your actions at not one but two accounts. To be frank, I don't see you as being in a position to make any sort of deal... you're the one who's blocked two times over, and with very good reason. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the incident with the copyright from Bialytock&Bloom, you can see that I understand and let the images get deleted, and then not upload a bad image. I made a terrible mistake, and just want to bypass that and continue editing. As you can see from the Bialytock&Bloom account's contributions, I have been very helpful sans the image problems. In addition to the "deal", after all of that is said and done, is there a way where you can block someone from uploading images, but not from editing?--S.S. Miami (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what way did you *let* those images get deleted, given that you had no choice? And why is that specific example any different from any of the others from your lengthy history of problematic file uploads? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone get User:JeanColumbia to:

1. Revert this edit
2. Add an "s" at the end of "Tony Award" here
3. Fix Beth Leavel after this edit: the part about her Tony nomination
4. Update Joshua Henry in the paragraph about The Scottsboro Boys (he is a 2011 Tony nominee), and also update this article based on the Tony nominations
5. Update The Scottsboro Boys (musical) with these:[1][2]
6. update Lombardi (play) with this:[3]

Despite being blocked, I will continue to expand and improve Wikipedia from my talk page.--S.S. Miami (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you won't. That's considered block evasion and is not allowed. In addition, anyone who acts on your behalf can possibly be considered a meatpuppet, depending on the circumstances, and might be subject to he same sanctions as before. This is just another example of your attempts to get around your block rather than abiding by Wikipedia policies. Consider this a warning that if you misuse your talk page again, your talk page privileges can also be revoked. -- Atama頭 23:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were clearly informed that your talk page privileges could be revoked if you continue misusing your talk page; removing the warning does not make it acceptable to try to get other users to edit on your behalf. Since you need help in accepting that you are blocked, I am disabling this talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next sockpuppet is possibly StryoFome. I not digged here to find out what the user made wrong, but I know that StryoFome is doing copyright violations on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]