Revision as of 15:07, 13 June 2007 editOnly (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users32,384 edits responding here← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:18, 13 June 2007 edit undoFlameviper (talk | contribs)2,325 edits Metros, please communicate with me through e-mail. I'd much rather have a platform to speak on where we are equals.Next edit → | ||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
::Flameviper, if you had created a sockpuppet and just gone about your merry way editing and then requested a block lift of your Flameviper account, I suspect that given the forgiving mood at the ] this probably would have been ignored as not a big deal. The fact that you actively participated in the unblock discussion with an alternate account and at no time stated that it was actually you is damning. If you don't see what is wrong with that that there is little more to say here. Nobody else caused this situation, this is a direct result of choices you yourself made. I have no history with you and was only peripherally aware of your existence before the ] discussion. I was willing to give you a second chance per the discussion there as were many other editors, but that support apparently evaporated when you sockpuppeted the discussion. Sorry Flameviper, but it would appear that you burned through your last chance.--] 15:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | ::Flameviper, if you had created a sockpuppet and just gone about your merry way editing and then requested a block lift of your Flameviper account, I suspect that given the forgiving mood at the ] this probably would have been ignored as not a big deal. The fact that you actively participated in the unblock discussion with an alternate account and at no time stated that it was actually you is damning. If you don't see what is wrong with that that there is little more to say here. Nobody else caused this situation, this is a direct result of choices you yourself made. I have no history with you and was only peripherally aware of your existence before the ] discussion. I was willing to give you a second chance per the discussion there as were many other editors, but that support apparently evaporated when you sockpuppeted the discussion. Sorry Flameviper, but it would appear that you burned through your last chance.--] 15:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
:I said "that sounds okay to me". Very abusive right there, I mean giving the thumbs up to something is ''definitely'' disruptive to the encyclopedia. ~ '''<font color="CC0000">]</font><font color="009900">]</font><font color="00CC00">]</font><font color="009900">]</font>''' 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
I'm going to respond to your email right here this way everyone knows that I'm not bowing down to your wtf did you call it? "Bone-crushing persuasion". You claim that you were blocked for that edit to Elaragirl's page. No, you were blocked for crap like this ], ], ], , , , etc. etc. The edit to Elaragirl's page is just one of many, many offenses. ] 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | I'm going to respond to your email right here this way everyone knows that I'm not bowing down to your wtf did you call it? "Bone-crushing persuasion". You claim that you were blocked for that edit to Elaragirl's page. No, you were blocked for crap like this ], ], ], , , , etc. etc. The edit to Elaragirl's page is just one of many, many offenses. ] 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
:Tell me what Two-Sixteen did to be disruptive or abusive. One diff that a regular user (you for example) would be punished for. ~ '''<font color="CC0000">]</font><font color="009900">]</font><font color="00CC00">]</font><font color="009900">]</font>''' 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:18, 13 June 2007
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).Flameviper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please put this page on your watchlist, I need someone to talk to...
Decline reason:
- Looks up WP:SOCK*...are sockpuppets allowed by users who are avoiding a block placed upon their main account? Oh look, no. Metros 14:53, 13 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.
Metros, I e-mailed you. Check your inbox.
Also, I want a response to my e-mail. If you do not respond, I'll take that as an indicator that you're either too weak to formulate a response to my bone-crushing persuasion or you totally agree with everything I say and that my message was so perfect you didn't need to respond.
I never made an "abusive sockpuppet". Two-Sixteen never would have been banned if you thought he was a different person than me. It may as well have been another person.
- Why should my treatment as Two-Sixteen have differed from my treatment as Flameviper?
- That difference in treatment, my friends, is why I was banned.
- I never did anything that was outright evil. I never made personal attacks, I didn't vandalise anything, I didn't violate 3RR or any of the other infinite rules.
- All I did was say something to Elaragirl. On her talk page.
- At the top of her talk page, IN BRIGHT RED LETTERS NO LESS, was a notice from Elaragirl that basically stated that on her talk page, one could be less constrained than normally.
- So I went ahead and spoke my mind. I told her that we were either going to get along or not get along, basically. And that's what I meant. It wasn't intended to be a "personal attack" and both of us acknowledged that. I e-mailed her later on and apoligized for being rude, and she basically told be that it was no big deal and that she didn't mind.
- But it doesn't matter whether I actually violated a rule or not. Metros, who had been riding my ass for the last month or so, seized the opportunity to attack me for the "violation of policy". Techincally, it was a violation of policy, but it wasn't really; the same way that lending someone your money isn't the same as being robbed.
- If Metros hadn't been riding my ass for the month previous to that, I never would have been banned. It's as simple as that; when you try to find fault in someone, you will do so.
- So after a few months of silent reflection that I had imposed upon myself, I decided to start again. I had tried to contact the administrators through every other avenue; my talk page, e-mail, the mailing list, everything. My talk page was locked for "unblock abuse" even though I was just trying to have a conversation. My e-mails to administrators were ignored. The mailing list was of no help whatsoever.
- I had no choice but to create a sockpuppet.
~ Flameviper 14:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Flameviper, if you had created a sockpuppet and just gone about your merry way editing and then requested a block lift of your Flameviper account, I suspect that given the forgiving mood at the unblocking discussion that was ongoing this probably would have been ignored as not a big deal. The fact that you actively participated in the unblock discussion with an alternate account and at no time stated that it was actually you is damning. If you don't see what is wrong with that that there is little more to say here. Nobody else caused this situation, this is a direct result of choices you yourself made. I have no history with you and was only peripherally aware of your existence before the WP:CN discussion. I was willing to give you a second chance per the discussion there as were many other editors, but that support apparently evaporated when you sockpuppeted the discussion. Sorry Flameviper, but it would appear that you burned through your last chance.--Isotope23 15:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I said "that sounds okay to me". Very abusive right there, I mean giving the thumbs up to something is definitely disruptive to the encyclopedia. ~ Flameviper 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to respond to your email right here this way everyone knows that I'm not bowing down to your wtf did you call it? "Bone-crushing persuasion". You claim that you were blocked for that edit to Elaragirl's page. No, you were blocked for crap like this User_talk:Jpgordon/Archive_2#WTF, User_talk:Jpgordon/Archive_2#WP:RFC, User_talk:Jpgordon/Archive_2#Oversight.2C_again, , , , etc. etc. The edit to Elaragirl's page is just one of many, many offenses. Metros 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Tell me what Two-Sixteen did to be disruptive or abusive. One diff that a regular user (you for example) would be punished for. ~ Flameviper 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)