User talk:Fingers2424
- Fingers2424 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 207.224.119.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Yoyoyo4567". The reason given for Yoyoyo4567's block is: "Block evasion".
- Notice: you are now blocked DIRECTLY, rather than just having been caught in an autoblock. Please read WP:SOCK - you are permitted one account on Wikipedia, and all others can be blocked on sight. If you have been previously blocked for edit-warring, the you need to realize that we work on WP:CONSENSUS. We have a clear be bold, revert, then discuss policy. Finally, the continued use of the word "libel" may be considered to have a violation of the no legal threats policy, and can also lead to blocks. Go back to your FIRST and what should be ONLY account, read WP:GAB and the policies I linked above, and act accordingly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
You have only confirmed the utter uselessness of this site. I spoke honestly, because I acted justifiably in order to remove libel. But apparently, Wikipedia does not place the truth higher than petty technicalities. Also, I was not warned before I was blocked. I had no idea why I would be blocked until it happened. I don't keep up on Wikipedia rules because they are mostly useless. Wikipedia allows people to cite just about anything as truth, which is appalling. And clearly, the "administrators" have no shame, and it's probably because it's the only joy you get while couch surfing or living in someone's basement.Fingers2424 (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Fingers2424 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
unaware of Wikipedia policies and acted without malice
Decline reason:
You were clearly aware of the username policy and that you were not permitted more that one when you signed up. You were welcomed with a link to other Wikipedia policies that were key. Your past edits referring to admins and others as "living in someone's basement" (personally, I own a modest 5-bedroom place in the suburbs) certainly were not "without malice". You were also aware that you are not permitted to remove declined unblock notices while you are still blocked, which you have done. You might also want to read WP:BROTHER. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:58, 7 June 2010 (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 request to be unblocked because I was unaware of Wikipedia policies. I intended no malice, all I intended to do was remove libelous information on the JaMarcus Russell page and became over-zealous in doing so.
I was unaware that I could not use multiple accounts, because after all, Wikipedia allowed me to do so. I do not understand why Wikipedia would allow the creation of multiple accounts, yet have policies against doing so.
Seeing as how, I was unaware of Wikipedia policies, I will willingly cooperate in order to rectify the issue. I would like to keep the user name Fingers2424, while Wikipedia can delete yoyoyo4567. Moreover, silverandblack is not mine, but that of a friend whom was on the same wireless network.
That was a joke protected by free speech. I apologize for that though. Moreover, I disagree. I was not aware before this that I could not have multiple accounts.10:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Fingers2424 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
indefinite block is excessive punishment and should be reduced / humor is not considered malice, malice is "intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse" when I merely attempted to remove libel and then made a hyperbolic joke (that was not included in the unblock request) because Wikipedia has stressed technicalities over the quality of information / thus the administrator blocked my account by use of synthetic reasons and not my official statement / administrator has not addressed the issue of intent that I attempted to remove libelous material / silverandblack is not my account but that of a friend on the same network / unless you can provide a document with my signature, then Wikipedia cannot prove that I was aware of Wikipedia policies because Wikipedia does not mandate training and cannot authenticate the confirmation that a user is aware of Wikipedia's policies and instead rely on synthetic rationale
Decline reason:
There are a few things that i notice:
- 1) Silverandblack got into a discussion regarding the JaMarcus Russell page several days ago. Then all of a sudden your account is registered and it finds its way to the same page within two minutes of creation. I would say that this is quite convincing evidence that you are either a sock or meat puppet.
- 2) You have admitted that SilverandBlack and you utilized the same network, and both of you edited while having exactly the same goal. While you refer to him as "A friend" now i would point out that you previously referred to him as "That editor" among other terms that did in no way indicate any personal connection whatsoever.
- 3) You admitted that yoyoyo4567 is a sock puppet of yours.
In other words, i would say Quack. Besides this your unblock request doesn't deal with your actions at all. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech or a court where man requires "a document with my signature" to indicate that you did not know the policies. Besides this your comments and behavior indicate that you do not grasp the purpose and spirit of Wikipedia. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 11:04, 7 June 2010 (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.
The Block is Excessive / Should be given a finite length
Fingers2424 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Apparently, Wikipedia has no appreciation for honesty. Again, the reasons are synthetic arguments. I admitted to using yoyoyo4567 as a gesture of good-will. Wikipedia has not explained the reasons for the excessive punishment. Wikipedia has not addressed the issue of intent because I merely acted in the spirit of the truth and quality of information on Wikipedia. I apologize for having stepped out of bounds on some occasions. I clearly insinuated willingness to comply with a block but that an indefinite block is excessive
Decline reason:
Silverandblack (talk · contribs) was making disputed edits to JaMarcus Russell and trying to defend them on Talk:JaMarcus Russell. This account was registered and immediately appeared at the talkpage to defend Silverandblack. A few minutes after Silverandblack was blocked for edit warring, Yoyoyo4567 (talk · contribs) was registered and immediately went to support the previous accounts. So, either Silverandblack asked you to edit on their behalf or you are one in the same, and both cases are violations of our policies. No matter which is the case, you have not addressed the reasons for your block nor explained why we should trust you to not cause further disruption. (Please see this and this.) Declined. —DoRD (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2010 (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 also will point out that if this account is the same person as Silverandblack, all unblock requests should be made from that account. —DoRD (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Biased distrust that seems retaliatory
Fingers2424 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wow, you're quite cynical. You can't trust me to not cause further disruption? I admitted to the transgression of Wikipedia rules, albeit unknowingly, and yet you continue to distrust me and so I believe that comment to be a personal attack. As I said, silverandblack is the account of a friend. This friend had been couch surfing but I kicked him out. After he was blocked, he contacted me while I was at a Starbucks and asked me to log in under a different account, after I had been logged in under Fingers2424. He assured me that it would be fine. Obviously, it was not. I admit to trusting a friend when I should not have. Clearly, honesty doesn't do any good because you have already stated your bias against me based on synthetic assumptions that all three user names were the same person. That is your basis for this unjustified punishment. All I have asked is for the the block to be given a time limit, because I think it's hypocritical to punish me based on synthetic arguments when Wikipedia bans synthetic arguments.
/ I have also established that my intent was not malicious and yet Wikipedia continues to ignore that. Also, I demanded that Wikipedia authenticate that I agreed to its terms and conditions, because I do believe that your block is in effect a cyber-attack that could compromise my privacy.
Decline reason:
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.
- A few more notes:
- You request still doesn't reflect that you understand why you have been blocked in the first place. Blocking is preventative, not punitive. An unblock doesn't require apologies, it requires that the user understands why he has been blocked. It seems that you still do not understand the reason for your block.
- All your unblock requests (This one included) mainly attack other people instead of discussing yourself. "Your friend did it", "you're quite cynical", "Biased distrust that seems retaliatory", "Unjustified punishment", "my intent was not malicious and yet Wikipedia continues to ignore that.". An unblock request is about you and your actions, not about others. This only reinforces my first concern - you simply don't seem to understand why you have been blocked, which means that you would likely make the same mistake again. And therefor the block will not be lifted.
- Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and not a court room where you can plead innocence due to not having been served "A document with a signature" explaining the rules to you. Neither is Wikipedia a Battleground or a democracy. If you maintain your current combative method of approaching problems, rather then trying to understand the other side and working towards the middle, i predict that Wikipedia will not be a place you would like to stay.
- I also see that Redvers has revoked your talk page editing rights for repeated abuse of the unblock template. Once you understand why you have been blocked you may issue another request trough the mailing list, but with your current behavior i don't see even a remote chance that you will be unblocked. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)