I am forced to use this talkpage as the talkpage for El Machete Guerrero as OhNoitsJamie has put a ridiculous protection on my talkpage effectively putting an end of me being able to defend myself against a equally ridiculous indefinate block! He used the reason "Protected User talk:El Machete Guerrero: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked ([edit=sysop] (expires 05:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)))", which is complete nonsense and I have not been using my talkpage for inappropriate editing whatsoever! So again I am going to use the same request block until someone actually reads it, and even before an admin thinks about using the invalid reason "confirmed abusive sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/El_Machete_Guerrero/Archive". Let it be known you are breaking wikipedia policy per my reason "There is absolutely NO confirmation of abusive sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/El_Machete_Guerrero/Archive! There is only confirmation of multiple accounts of which none have been used as sockpuppets, ... learn what a sockpuppet is/WP:SOCK and do not answer these requests until you have read that page, thankyou. I am re-adding this page until an admin actually reads it.". El Machete Guerrero

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am permitted to own multiple accounts "owning multiple accounts is permitted on the English Wikipedia" and me doing so has not been disruptive other than the edit war I had with a blocked editor using multiple IPs to game the system, evade his block and abusively use his multiple accounts. Had I done the same as him it would be considered abuse and sockpuppetry, but I did not and I have not broken any policy except 3RR. So a further block is both inappropriate and unecessary. You are welcome to look at my contributions, all I have done to wikipedia is improve it in my time as a wikipedian. Take a look at these pages so you can understand me, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance, WP:SOCK, WP:MULTIPLE. None of the accounts are sockpuppets and all of them are legitimate and concentrate on a particular area of wikipedia. In addition the check user was requested by fishing and not for legitimate reasons other than the fact I was in a debate with the user whom requested it. The code letter was F because he did not have a legitimate reason and he provided no diffs or evidence whatsoever. He infact acused me of being El Perso the original and an IP and gave the reason good hand/bad hand but provided no evidence whatsoever. Then when the results came back he conceded to the fact that the multiple accounts were not sockpuppets on the AN/I page we argued on. Even though I most likely peeved him off with my hard words and our interactions with each other. And he knew he was wrong and had done the wrong thing and I was not aware of him fishing until he blocked me. You can see this here. So I am asking to have this ridiculous block lifted and allow me to get back to improving wikipedia as I have been as I was very patient waiting the three days for the block George put on me to expire only to find this ridiculous , no reason, no evidence block put ont me by Nixeagle. Cheers, El Machete Guerrero.

Decline reason:

Nope. You'll never get unblocked by attacking the blocking admin. By the way, there is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:44, 23 March 2009 (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.

What a complete and utter joke! Not once but twice this admin has broken policy and put a ridiculous uncalled for protection on my talkpage giving me no way to plead my case. And not once but twice has he used the ridiculous, completely false reason of "Protected User talk:El Machete Guerrero: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked ([edit=sysop] (expires 05:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)))" when I have in no way been using my talkpage for inappropriate editing and the only thing I have used it for is my unblock requests. What makes this whole thing even more ridiculous is that the only editor using sockpuppets being the IP is already off his block and has already started editing when he undoubtly gamed the system, was a sockpuppeteer abusing multiple IP accounts to evade a block and used his socks to continue in an edit war! This is an abomination and me the established good editor who has done nothing other than improve wikipedia in my time editing has been indefinately blocked effectively banning me and an IP who has broken multiple policies on multiple occasions (others had trouble with him before me, just check his talkpage history which he always blanks) has gotten off scott free with nothing but a slap on the wrist! This in no way in no circumstance can be considered right and I still cannot fathom how admins can commit this gross abuse of their editing privleges and no one even cares! How is this in any way fair?! And how does this in anyway keep in the spirit of wikipedia?! An editor only need to look at my contributions to see I am a valuable contributor to this project and that banning me would not help the community in any way! I have had enough of this nonsense and I insist an admin actually read my unblock request and then give me diffs and evidence on why they should or should not unblock me as it is their duty being an admin! Now don't get me wrong I am in no way attacking admins on a whole as I am sure there are deserving admins who are actually fair and don't abuse their power and if I did not believe this I would not even bother requesting an unblock as I would know it is a complete waste of time. But I am quite sure that if OhNoitsJamie sees this request once more he will make sure he comes here to shut me up and remove the comments before anyone can see it and use the same invalid reason! That's why I beg another admin intervene and let me have my freedom of speech and actually plead my case and defend myself. Please, El Machete Guerrero.

Jéské Couriano's response to all my points above in my unblock request

1. I am permitted to own multiple accounts "owning multiple accounts is permitted on the English Wikipedia" and me doing so has not been disruptive other than the edit war I had with a blocked editor using multiple IPs to game the system, evade his block and abusively use his multiple accounts. Creating multiple accounts (known as sockpuppets) to further an edit war in an attempt to evade or prevent sanctions on your main account is indeed expressly forbidden.

1. Learn what a sockpuppet is Jeremy as multiple accounts aren't considered socks unless they meet a certain criteria which you would know had you read up on wikipedia policies. And I guess it is good that I did not create multiple accounts to further an edit war in an attempt to evade or prevent sanctions!

1. I did not and I have not broken any policy except 3RR. Wrong; you've provably violated WP:Sock puppetry, WP:Tendentious editing (The edit-war at Reggaeton), and WP:No personal attacks (The AN/I thread as well.

1. No right! You are wrong! I have not "probably" violated any other policy. Probably does not cut it in a ban Jeremy, either provide diffs or it is an attack on me!

1. You are welcome to look at my contributions, all I have done to wikipedia is improve it in my time as a wikipedian. Explain the edit-war that got you blocked initially, then - you were, cut-and-dried, edit-warring, which doesn't help Wikipedia at all. Even if the other user was blocked, that is no excuse to revert to an apparently-vandalized version, which indicates blind-reverting and thus edit-warring. Anons have as much right to edit Wikipedia as registered accounts.

1. I did explain myself and my actions a number of times on talkpages and the AN/I for Reggaeton, you know this! I also explained that I thought the reference was corrected which is why I kept it and infact the IP was the one making the blind reverts and not myself, you also know this! It's all on the AN/I page, but of course once again you are very well aware of this! I'm just making sure other admins don't buy into the deceit.

1. Take a look at these pages so you can understand me, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance, WP:SOCK, WP:MULTIPLE. All three pages condemn your behavior - Circumventing Wikipedia policies such as multiple article reversions, edit-warring, collusion, evasion, disruption, or other misuse [is expressly forbidden] (SPI/Guidance); Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as the "three-revert rule" are for each person's edits. (WP:Sock puppetry#Circumventing policy); Using multiple accounts to give the appearance of popularity to an idea, to avoid scrutiny, or to avoid a block or ban on another account are considered major abuses and are not tolerated on Wikipedia. (WP:Username policy#Using multiple accounts).

1. All three pages do not condemn my behaviour! I did not do anything stated in those quotes and this is supported by your complete lack of diffs! So once again another attack on me by you an admin!

1. None of the accounts are sockpuppets and all of them are legitimate and concentrate on a particular area of wikipedia. Per WP:Username policy#Using multiple accounts and the Checkuser findings, this isn't so. Also, you were evading a block with this account.

1. Per WP:Username policy#Using multiple accounts and the Checkuser findings, this is so! Do not use policies to say something they do not! Also, I was not evading a block as I did not edit anywhere in wikipedia except my talkpage, and I was given no choice because admins like you gave me no way of defending myself and letting me plead my case!

1. In addition the check user was requested by fishing and not for legitimate reasons other than the fact I was in a debate with the user whom requested it. The code letter was F because he did not have a legitimate reason and he provided no diffs or evidence whatsoever. The case letter being F just means that the reason for the check is not ban evasion, serious pattern vandalism, vote fraud, or 3RR violation via sockpuppets. That doesn't make the check illegitimate, and the requester linked to the AN/I thread, where the diffs were, so that he didn't have to spend ages compiling diffs. Second, checkuser is a very privacy-invasive tool, and thus checkusers are obligated to not use it unless there is a compelling reason to. As one of the templates says: Checkuser is not for fishing.

1. There were no diffs! Where were the links that connected me to El Perso and the IP?! They were no where! It was fishing and is most likely the reason he conceded to me not using multiple accounts abusively out of guilt.

1. He infact acused me of being El Perso the original and an IP and gave the reason good hand/bad hand but provided no evidence whatsoever. Reggaeton's history had suggested it, since he stopped editing the article about the same time you started.

1. That did not suggest a thing! Just because someone stops editing an article and then someone else starts editing it does not mean they are the same person. There were absolutely no grounds for a checkuser and the admin who did the check failed to respect the rules of a checkuser and my privacy as an editor.

1. Then when the results came back he conceded to the fact that the multiple accounts were not sockpuppets on the AN/I page we argued on. Quoth the SPI findings: These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny. Trying to evade scrutiny with sockpuppets is expressly forbidden.

1. I provided the diff here so there is no way you can try and say this is a lie unless you lie. This quote "These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny" is completely unfounded and was probably made by the checkuser admin as a thin veil for doing a checkuser from another admin who was in a debate with me just fishing and did not provide any diffs! I already addressed this in my comment towards Nixeagle who was the one who effectively banned me "They all focus on different areas of wikipedia and different article spaces and are in no way used to avoid scrutiny and their edits combined would not be considered improper if done by a single account!".

1. So I am asking to have this ridiculous block lifted and allow me to get back to improving wikipedia as I have been as I was very patient waiting the three days for the block George put on me to expire only to find this ridiculous , no reason, no evidence block put ont me by Nixeagle. Cheers, El Machete Guerrero. I'll say this yet again: Checkuser-confirmed blocks are never overturned because the accounts involved are proved as coming from the same IP. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. They have to be as this was not an abuse of multiple accounts and in no way or form can be considered sockpuppetry as conceded to even by an admin who does not like me! George

We already have. It's not my fault you see "Confirmed" at the Sockpuppet Investigations case page and read it the opposite way if disruption's involved. I recommend you pipe down - you're heading the right way for a community ban. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you have not! That does not confirm sockpuppets and only confirms multiple accounts under the one IP! Do not assert false information! I will now emphasise and highlight the fact that I proved each one of your broken down points wrong and the fact that you still have not provided any diffs whatsoever for your attacks on me and continue to break wikipedia policy as an editor. Of course this will not matter to you as most admins I have dealt with do what ever they want and do not even follow policy and only follow their emotions. So you will come here delete all my comments proving you wrong and proving I have been treated like crap, then you will give false edit summaries when doing this. Summaries that will make it seem like you are doing good instead of bad. Then Jamie will come here protect this page so I have no way of defending myself once you decide to attack me once more and go about his day without a care in the world. All the while doing a great diservice to the reputation of wikipedia as a whole and not allowing me to improve wikipedia in areas I am knowledgeable. But if anyone decides to read the history they will just see the great injustice and it will say more about you than me. I would reason with you, but reasoning only works when one person does not hold a grudge. So I'm not sure how effective that would be. Someone unprotect my talkpage on El Machete Guerrero so I do not have to keep on using other means to communicate. El Machete Guerrero

Yes it does. Multiple accounts under an IP. That is called sockpuppeting. Let me inform you that it is technically impossible for two computers far apart to have the exact same IP address.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not, let me inform you to read WP:SOCK as you obviously are clueless. El Machete

I suggest you retract that personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, if what you were doing was not to violate policy, please explain why you were using multiple accounts without informing anyone of their existence.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I can, read WP:SOCK. And I do not need to repeat myself 10 million times, you need to instead read! I said I had multiple accounts because they all focused on different areas. It's easier to break up tasks. El Machete Guerrero

Lastly, I did read WP:SOCK, did you? Here, let me quote it for you: Some uses for alternate accounts are explicitly forbidden: using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny,. Directly from the page. You were doing this with your multiple accounts, and therefore you were blocked. Per WP:SOCK. I've been sock fighting for at least a year now, so I'm pretty sure I know my way around WP:SOCK.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did you should read properly. Multiple accounts are allowed as long as you do not abuse them. Let me requote myself for you as you do not read "They all focus on different areas of wikipedia and different article spaces and are in no way used to avoid scrutiny and their edits combined would not be considered improper if done by a single account!".. I was not doing this so do not say I was! This is attacking me! And you say you have been sock fighting for years now, well I must say my heart goes out to all whom were wrongly blocked. El Machete Guerrero

Further, your reply does not answer my question: Why did you not relay that these accounts were yours originally.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I do not need to. Let me find it for you it's in one of these three (WP:SOCK, WP:MULTIPLE, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance) but I will quote it for you as you will probably miss it. El Machete Guerrero

"It is recommended but not required that multiple accounts be identified as such on their user pages"

I really suggest you stop evading. Citing a notice does not tell me why you chose to not tell people of your other accounts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's as plain as day so read! I did not make it public as I did not need to! Fullstop. El Machete Guerrero

You were using multiple, unconfirmed sockpuppet accounts to avoid scrutiny of your contributions. That is against the rules. Secondly, you shouldn't be talking about misleading edit summeries when you yourself have used them. You say we haven't listed any diffs? We don't have to, your behavior speaks for yourself. Tagging a sockpuppeteer page with a sockpuppeteer tag is not an attack. Back to the diffs for a second, you continually tell others they've attacked you, but refuse to provide us with diffs. So how about you listen to yourself for a second, and follow your own rules. Lastly, stop the righteous attitude, if you don't stop, I'm going to start a thread on ANI asking for a community ban. This is truely, your last warning.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I was not and this is an attack on me saying I was. I have never used misleading edit summaries, although you have. And you saying I have is an attack on me but me saying you have is the truth. Yes you do, my behaviour is justified and does not break policy. Everyone else is not banned, I am. Therefore they must provide diffs! How about you think back to what you rudely said to me, "you have no authority to tell me to do anything" because now I'm throwing it back on you. Don't make threats against me either, you're not an admin yet you persist on acting like one. I have done nothing wrong other than get in an edit war with a blocked IP and I will standby this until the day I die. This whole drama could be used in the time or newpapers articles to badmouth the way wikipedia works, because I am the perfect example of the many flaws of wikipedia and the many abuses by admins. El Machete Guerrero

Would you like me to cite the diffs where you attack me and use misleading edit summeries? By the way, the evidence backs up that you have been using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, and me saying that you do is not an attack. I suggest you read WP:NPA to figure out what is and what is not an attack.

No it does not, so this is an attack! El Machete Guerrero

No, it isn't. Just because you say something doesn't mean it is true. I suggest you quit while you're ahead and admit you're at fault.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read!!! "They all focus on different areas of wikipedia and different article spaces and are in no way used to avoid scrutiny and their edits combined would not be considered improper if done by a single account!". Yes I know this thankyou for reminding me, but when I say something that is true it means it is! Understand. Just because you say something doesn't mean it is true either! And in this case it is not so you are breaking policy! I am not at fault and I will not quit defending myself. I would say the same for you but you are not ahead and all you are doing is wikistalking me and constantly harrasing me, you are not an admin so I don't see what business you have in this other than your grudge! El Machete Guerrero

Still evading. You have not supplied why you chose to not reveal the accounts were yours. Again, you are not infallible. If you keep arguing from this stance, you're going to remain indefinitely blocked. I have not attacked you once, but as noted below, you have attacked me and others. I notice you have yet to man-up to the cited evidence, and until you acknowledge that you were in the wrong, trust me, you are going nowhere fast.

Again, I suggest you immediately retract your personal attack that have been noted below, and by retract, I mean delete from the page. If you will not do so, I shall request a community Ban at ANI. No, this is not an empty threat, as you do not have to be an admin to request a Ban.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the diffs:

Misleading edit summaries

• Suggesting that what you removed were attacks, when they were in fact not attacks.
  • Yes they were "you're finished" and accusing me of being a sockpuppeteer. And the attack template
• Rm Harassment when in fact the edits were not harassment.
  • Not misleading at all. I removed something off my talkpage and you reverted it. Harrasment!
• Calling a template an attack template when such was not the case
  • It is when what it describes is unfounded and completely false!
    • Wrong. Checkuser got a direct hit on you. The template is not false, and continuing to claim it is does not make it so.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • YOU ARE WRONG! Checkuser showed there were multiple accounts under the one IP. Not sockpuppets or misuse of these accounts together! The template is false! And you continuing to claim it is true does not make it so!
        • No, I'm sorry, but no. Checkuser showed you were using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. The template is not false. You were using multiple accounts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I'm sorry, but no. Checkuser did not show this at all and you are breaking policy repeatedly saying it did. It says pressumably by the check user "These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny" with absolutely no diffs or evidence and was most likely used as a thin veil for wrongly performing a checkuser by a user whom was fishing. "They all focus on different areas of wikipedia and different article spaces and are in no way used to avoid scrutiny and their edits combined would not be considered improper if done by a single account!"
            • Do tell me how I am breaking policy by repeating checkuser findings. This will be interesting, as I am not, and there is nothing you can cite that can back up your slander.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I never said you were, again breaking policy!
  • Yes, you did, in fact, you just did right now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diffs! Quote otherwise you are breaking policy!!!
      • NO. You continuing to claim I am breaking policy is a personal attack, and I do not need to provide diffs as the edits are right there. But fine, here is a quote from you, not a few minutes before: No, I'm sorry, but no. Checkuser did not show this at all and you are breaking policy repeatedly saying it did. You told me I am breaking policy there, and in another place. Retract it now, or I am proposing a ban.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it is not because it is true! And if you are going to say I said something you do need to provide a diff so people don't think you are lying. It is against Civility if you don't! Here is the full quote so do yourself a favour and read it and do not "Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them". "No, I'm sorry, but no. Checkuser did not show this at all and you are breaking policy repeatedly saying it did. It says pressumably by the check user "These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny" with absolutely no diffs or evidence and was most likely used as a thin veil for wrongly performing a checkuser by a user whom was fishing. "They all focus on different areas of wikipedia and different article spaces and are in no way used to avoid scrutiny and their edits combined would not be considered improper if done by a single account!""

Personal attacks

• Calling me clueless
  • Saying I am using sockpuppets and avoiding scrutiny
    • That isn't a personal attack. If you want to ever help your chances of being unblocked, I suggest you stop the righteous behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it is. And don't suggest anything, because you are not an admin and cannot unblock me and quoting you once more "you have no authority to tell me to do anything".
        • You're right for once. However, I'm trying to help you. If you want to get yourself unblocked, you're going to have to admit to your wrong doing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have. I apologized for getting in an edit war. I do not have anything more to apologise for.
          • Yes, you do. You insulted me and several admins.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You do. You have all insulted me and attacked me.
              • Calling a sockpuppet a sockpuppet is not a personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• When it is true, but it is not so it is a personal attack!
  • No, it is not. By continuing to deny that you have done anything wrong, you are in fact digging the hole you are in deeper and deeper and deeper.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your blind rage at me makes your judgement impaired. I am not going to answer as I have already provided the evidence and quote and you have not so I am done on this point
      • What blind rage? You're the one that keeps insulting me, and others, and you're the one that is continuously incivil. If you do not reply to my new section, I'm proposing a ban.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The blind rage that has brung you to wikistalk me and constantly harrass me instead of doing something else, like I don't know, watch tv.
• Calling another editor a complete and utter joke, his edits ridiculous, non-sense; claiming admin abuse, claiming a long-standing admin does not know policy
  • I did not call him that, so you are now being uncivil asserting false information. I have called his invalid reasons ridiculous, he has abused his powers and where did I say this last thing? I can't see where I did but it is true none the less. He either does not know policy 100% or he does and choses not to abide by it.
    • Yes you did, it is the first word in your paragraph about him. Secondly, continuing with this idea that what you say is true about others is a personal attack. Telling someone like him, who has been around here for a long time does not know policy at all is uncivil, rude, and a personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "You" and "This" are two completely different words and you know this you just choose to ignore it so you can attack me! And if you are going to say I said that about him then quote me or it is an attack!
        • What a complete and utter joke! Directly from the paragraph above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where is you're?
            • The name of the section is that of an admin, and that is the first word you use, hence, you are referring to the admin.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hence you are engaging in incivility
                • No, I'm not. I have not said a single uncivil thing this entire time, the same cannot be said for you, however.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is going no where fast, you are in denial.
  • You're right, this is going nowhere fast. I've cited specific diffs of your incivility, and you continue to make bogus claims against me. Adding sockpuppet tags when the evidence fits is not a personal attack, no matter how many times you say it is, it does not make it so. You're the one who has claimed that an admin likes abusing her powers, you are the one that called me clueless. You are the one making the personal attacks, you are the one being uncivil.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your claims are bogus and I have refuted them all and I have even quoted policies for you, you have however failed to proven any of your bogus claims against me. You're the one who is being uncivil as I have provided quotes and evidence clearly supporting my argument you on the otherhand are using anectdotal evidence and grossly misquoting me commiting incivility.
      • My claims are bogus? You called me clueless. That is a personal attack. You said a long-time admin did not know policy. That is a personal attack. You said an admin who protected your original account talk page loved abusing power. That's a personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly

You still have yet to answer why you did not make it known that those accounts were yours. If you want to get any closer to being unblocked, I suggest you stop trying to evade this question.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a complete and utter joke! Not once but twice this admin has broken policy and put a ridiculous uncalled for protection on my talkpage giving me no way to plead my case. And not once but twice has he used the ridiculous, completely false reason of "Protected User talk:El Machete Guerrero: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked ([edit=sysop] (expires 05:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)))" when I have in no way been using my talkpage for inappropriate editing and the only thing I have used it for is my unblock requests. What makes this whole thing even more ridiculous is that the only editor using sockpuppets being the IP is already off his block and has already started editing when he undoubtly gamed the system, was a sockpuppeteer abusing multiple IP accounts to evade a block and used his socks to continue in an edit war! This is an abomination and me the established good editor who has done nothing other than improve wikipedia in my time editing has been indefinately blocked effectively banning me and an IP who has broken multiple policies on multiple occasions (others had trouble with him before me, just check his talkpage history which he always blanks) has gotten off scott free with nothing but a slap on the wrist! This in no way in no circumstance can be considered right and I still cannot fathom how admins can commit this gross abuse of their editing privleges and no one even cares! How is this in any way fair?! And how does this in anyway keep in the spirit of wikipedia?! An editor only need to look at my contributions to see I am a valuable contributor to this project and that banning me would not help the community in any way! I have had enough of this nonsense and I insist an admin actually read my unblock request and then give me diffs and evidence on why they should or should not unblock me as it is their duty being an admin! Now don't get me wrong I am in no way attacking admins on a whole as I am sure there are deserving admins who are actually fair and don't abuse their power and if I did not believe this I would not even bother requesting an unblock as I would know it is a complete waste of time. But I am quite sure that if OhNoitsJamie sees this request once more he will make sure he comes here to shut me up and remove the comments before anyone can see it and use the same invalid reason! That's why I beg another admin intervene and let me have my freedom of speech and actually plead my case and defend myself. Please, El Machete Guerrero.

Disapointing how you can persistently abuse your powers and not even have the slightest bit of guilt in doing so. Almost seems as if you enjoy it. Disapointing. I would be ashamed but I guess we are completely different people. El Machete Guerrero

You're not helping yourself here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You declined my request and said I will never get unblocked by attacking the admin who blocked me, but you following suit with all the other admins and you did not provide one diff. Please provide one otherwise you are being uncivil attacking me. El Machete Guerrero

If you do not respond to this post, apologizing for insulting myself and several others, I'm proposing a community ban of you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]