THC Science

Welcome!

Hello, Xcahv8, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Manticore (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krazy

Hello. By changing this page to redirect to the song Krazy (song) you broke a number of wikilinks from several other pages which I have now corrected - for instance, see here. I have also changed Krazy to be a more useful disambiguation page, since I believe it is just as likely for someone searching for Krazy, or linking to Krazy, to be referring to other instances (I note there is also a song by "BlackGirls" called "Krazy" for example). So, in future, after moving an article please check the "What links here" link in the toolbox on the left and then fix up those links. Thanks! Stephenb (Talk) 09:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted per WP:RECENT Stephenb (Talk) 09:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule which you have just violated. Why do you think a recent song, which only reached #30, would be more notable and more likely to be the target of a search than any other use of "Krazy", in particular a well-remembered UK comic or any other possible meanings that I added to the disambiguation article? I think you are incorrect. Stephenb (Talk) 10:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SheffieldSteel

You say quote:

"The circumstances surrounding the checkuser request cannot be used to argue that the CU findings are somehow inadmissable evidence (Wikipedia isn't a courtroom drama). According to the Checkuser, this account is one of several that has been used to avoid scrutiny, so an indefinite block seems quite appropriate.".

Why do you even say this? I was not arguing it to be inadmissable evidence, I was arguing that they did not find me to be abusing multiple accounts, commiting sockpuppetry and avoiding scrutiny. I have already mentioned this over and over on almost every single talkpage of my accounts now, so I will quote myself.

"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!". Then again I said this: 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!".

And then you say "While it's possible for the master account to be unblocked, I don't think it reasonable to unblock one of the sock accounts based on whether or not the master should have been blocked". My response to that is I want El Machete unblocked as that what I am using my unblock request under, and then automatically when that is unblocked and it is found I have not used my accounts abusively, the others would be unblocked.

You have also now made me come to this account because I am no longer able to defend myself on my other account as you protected it due to the edit war I was having with Daedalus969. Why couldn't you just follow my request and block him though? He has made more than 40 reverts on another page and he has made probably just as many if not more on Polystyla. I was blocked for three days over 18 reverts. And I said I was sorry, Daedalus969 does not even show remorse and has not apologised for knowingly breaking policy. Is it because he came to your page and you listened to him instead of me? El Machete Guerrero

I also noticed the message you left for Daedalus969 on his talkpage and you said the only reason you are not blocking him is it would serve no preventative purpose. But it would serve as prevention as he has been wikistalking me and harrasing me since my very first request on El Machete Guerrero, and because he hasn't been blocked he has just continued. And I have no doubt he will continue on this page. He was even warned by Mendaliv who does not really like me on his talkpage. So this says something. But don't worry if that is not reason enough as he will surely persist to harrass me on this talkpage. And let me remind you also that my first block was served on me for the exact same reason for three days by George. And I had stopped edit warring with the blocked IP at that time because the article was protected and we were discussing it on the AN/I page. This was punative and not a preventative block, so I don't see any reason why Daedalus969 should not get the same treatment. El Machete Guerrero

Regarding checkuser evidence. Checkusers are highly trusted members of the Wikipedia community. Look at how few users are trusted with this right.Every time you accuse one of these users of making unfounded statements or acting in bad faith (or whatever "as a thin veil for doing a checkuser from another admin" means), you lessen the chances of any other editor believing what you say.

Well that is messed up then because you are pretty much telling me that they are so trusted that they are immune from critisism and everyone takes what they say to be truth with no question. I wonder what would happen if they told any other editor to commit murder. I know this sounds ridiculous but I am putting it into perspective for you and anyone else, we are all human.

Another point regarding checkuser evidence. You say that the checkuser statement "These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny" is "completely unfounded". That's because you can't see the evidence behind the statement. Neither can I. That's because it is personal information held in confidence by the checkuser. The only way it can be challenged is by another checkuser reviewing the information.

Well it's my personal information so I am allowing it to be made public. Otherwise there is no possible way of defending myself and they can pretty much do that to anyone they see fit and nothing can be done about it.

Posting the same unblock request on multiple accounts may be seen as a form of forum shopping, and in the worst case could be viewed as abusing multiple accounts. I'm sure you can see why - most editors only get the one User Talk page, they cannot post the same request multiple times, and if the page does get protected they have to resort to email or IRC.

Well I would not even had come to these other talkpages had my first talkpage not been blocked without good reason. I was not even aware of that behavioural guidline until you told me so thankyou for telling me. And although I can see how it may lok like I'm doing that, I don't believe I am because no review has concluded my block to be proper as no admin will bother reading or replying to my comments directed at them, and I cannot go outside of my talkpage to their talkpage to leave them the comments. So if they choose to ignore me, which most have, I am powerless and I have to make another request. I have no other choice.

If you want User:El Machete Guerrero unblocked, you should request an unblock for that account, not this one. For more information, see How to request to be unblocked and expand the sections titled "Current unblock message" and then "What do I do now?"

I did and was until OhNoitsJamie protected the page using an invalid reason. That is why I was forced to come to my other accounts. And I do not want to use the email, as I want all discussions to be public so the admins can't avoid scrutiny.

I'm afraid that you're mistaken about my decision not to block User:Daedalus969 for edit-warring. A block would not have been preventative, since other measures already prevented any further edit-warring at the page in question. Whenever an admin is considering how to prevent edit-warring, the options to be considered are blocking, warnings, and semi- or full-protection, any of which may be sufficient to prevent further disruption. In this case, there were other arguments in favour of protecting the page, and in addition I gave Daedalus969 quite a stiff warning. It might be best for you to let this aspect of the matter drop, as counter-accusations tend to have unfortunate side-effects, e.g. they may contain personal attacks and accusations of bad faith, neither of which is likely to help your case.

Well I don't mean to act in bad faith or attack anyone, but I am just going of evidence and history. You can check for yourself. He has wikistalked me and harrassed me since El Machete Guerrero discussions, and he did over 40 reverts on Sabre Savage talkpage. So this is an ongoing thing and because he was not blocked before, nothing prevented him coming to harrass me and break policy once more. So if he follows his pattern and does come here than you should block him because you will then know that you could have prevented that with an original block on Polystyla instead of a protection. And I also no they are meant to be preventative not punative, but George does not as he punatively blocked me for the exact same reason. You should look at the El Machete Guerrero talkpage and see why he blocked me for 72 hours. Then you can see that edit wars had been over long beforehand and this block was not preventative and he was doing it out of self interest.

I hope this information helps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did thankyou for your time to reply. El Machete Guerrero

I also have noticed you declined my block again. Can you then please be the only blocking admin who is willing to discuss his decision with me on my talkpage as no other admin has. You said again "socks" which is an attack against me, let me remind you once more that I was never found to be using socks and the CU only found there to be multiple accounts under the one IP. This is in no way or form proof of abusing multiple accounts and commiting sockpuppetry. El Machete Guerrero

The term "socks" is a convenient shorthand and not a personal attack. I do not know why you persist in saying that you were never found to be using socks. A checkuser said that "These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny" which matches our definition of sockpuppetry well enough. Now, I appreciate that you may disagree with the checkuser findings, but there really isn't any point saying that those findings did not happen or that they said something else. More to the point, it should be clear by now that no adminisrator is likely to overturn the checkuser findings based on your say-so. Therefore, if you wish to be unblocked, the best course of action is email ArbCom and present your evidence to them. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not shorthand and it is an attack. I don't know why you persist in saying I am using socks as I have repeated myself, time and time again that the CU did not find this. A CU did say "These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny", but this does not at all match sockpuppetry as this was a baseless statement for a baseless CU. Before you attack me again read the three links I have provided, time and time and time again. I will now find them and again repeat myself. I feel like a Parrot! Here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance, WP:SOCK, WP:MULTIPLE. Learn the definition of a sockpuppet and then you can apologise for attacking me. Again, repeating myself, I was never, ever, ever, ever found to be using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny and the only thing I was found to be doing is using multiple accounts. The statement on the CU is completely unfounded and I have already explained why I think it was made. El Machete Guerrero

"Sock" isn't shorthand? What do you think I was using the term for, if not an abbreviation of "sockpuppet"? Regarding WP:SOCK, by the way, you should know that it says this...

... Some uses for alternate accounts are explicitly forbidden: ... circumventing Wikipedia policies. ... If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that they provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry (see alternative account notification).

Perhaps, based on the above information, you can understand why a reasonable editor would use the term "sock", in good faith and not as an intentional attack, to refer to an alternate account which was not, as it should have been, linked to the owner's other accounts.

When you were prevented from editing one account's talk page, you moved onto another account's talk page. This happened more than once. You also posted the same unblock request across multiple accounts. These actions constitute use of multiple accounts to circumvent a block and/or other Wikipedia policies. I personally decided not to sanction you for abusing multiple accounts by posting the same unblock request across multiple user pages. This does not mean that you did not abuse multiple accounts. It certainly does not mean that you are entitled to demand an apology for me using the term "sock" to refer to those multiple accounts.

Speaking of assuming good faith, by the way, you might wish to consider re-reading WP:AGF and perhaps apologising to the various people you have accused of acting in bad faith when dealing with you. It might go a long way towards persuading others to view your appeal sympathetically. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I did not circumvent a block with my multiple accounts, period. So stop assrting false information. Any reasonable editor would comment on the facts and not make false assertions! Learn the meaning of "recommended" and then go and read the three pages I provided you again because you still don't understand. This quote is from one of the pages "It is recommended but not required that multiple accounts be identified as such on their user pages". I did not have to link my accounts, so I did not. If they had to be linked, I would have linked them. But they did not have to, so I did not.

Yes I know it happened more than once as I was the one to do it? What makes you think I would not know this? These actions do not constitute use of multiple accounts to circumvent a block and/or other Wikipedia policies as I did not circumvent a block and/or other Wikipedia policies! I did this so I was able to defend myself from an unfounded indefinate block and was not able to do it on my original page as my page was blocked for an invalid reason. The only true reason being to gag me and shut me up. Good for you for doing the right thing and not bringing a sanction on me for doing something I did not. But this probably did you a favour and not myself as I did not abuse my accounts to evade a block and saying I did is not the truth. It does and you do have to apologise as I never used sockpuppets once, and even if I did evade a block, which I did not, I was forced to by the constant abuse of admins and their powers. Had OhNoitsJamie not unfairly protected my talkpage the first time I would not have needed to use my other pages to defend myself against slander.

I have commented on observations throughout this whole ordeal, and I only comment on patterns. So if I think someone will do something it is only because they have acted in a way which supports this belief. I might not have assumed good faith to everyone I deal with, but neither has anyone else for that matter. I could go through every single editors comments towards or about me in this situation and I can guarentee you that I would be able to quote every single editor assuming bad faith on my behalf. El Machete Guerrero

Proposing a ban against me

As I cannot edit outside of this talkpage I will reply to this ban proposal here. I was not found to be using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny and the quote is as follows: "These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny"

Now this only proves the use of multiple accounts under one IP and not sockpuppetry something which an admin who does not like me admitted. The admin who said this quote is presumably the same admin who performed the checkuser, and make a note that he had absolutely no evidence or diffs to support his claim. It is my belief this is a thin veil for a checkuser performed on the ground of fishing, and when it was discovered I was not El Perso or the described IP he needed an excuse and this was sufficient.

I have only acted in knee-jerk reactions to other editors and have been defensive when I have felt appropriate. I have been consistently and constantly attacked and have been blocked indefenitely with no diffs whatsoever and invalid claims against me. I am a good editor and have only improved wikipedia in my time as an editor, something which cannot be said for the blocked IP editor I was in a revert war with. Whom by the way is now making edits even though he has been the only sockpuppeteer in this issue, using his socks to evade blocks and break policy.

One of this prominet editors is Daedalus969 who has persistently wikistalked me, harrassed me, attacked me and given me threats in my dealings with him. He is not an admin and originally had no involvement in this issue and nothing to do with it. But he decided to make himself involved due to his vendetta against me. Now because I will not apologise to him as he will not apologise to me he has proposed a ban on me. You can see his character from reading. He has also called in recruits to gang up on me, all editors who have something against me and who will help his cause.

Where is this Daedalus969? I have told you time and time again you must show diffs for such strong accusations against me, and it's funny you even mention that after the 20+ reverts you made on my talkpage! I will now go count them so an admin can block you appropriately, and trust me they will because I was blocked for the exact same thing. And admins don't like to be seen as having discrimination. I was blocked for getting in an edit war with a block editor. Now I am a blocked editor and you had an edit war with me, so now you should be blocked for getting in an edit war with a blocked editor. And you made more reverts then I did on my original block. I will now proceed to count them. I counted OVER 40!!! So you should be blocked for twice as long as I was because I reverted 18 times with a blocked IP who was a sockpuppeteer and gamed the system. El Machete Guerrero

Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Blocking me now would be pointless, as it wouldn't be preventing anything, as I have stopped reverting.— Dædαlus Contribs 12:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So did I, but that didn't stop me from getting a block. And I'm sure admins don't wish to discriminate and show they edit based on self interest instead of what's fair. El Machete Guerrero.

Again you persist to badmouth me. And again I will point out that you were the first one not to provide any diffs whatsoever for all your attacks on me over the past week on pretty much all my talkpages, and only now at the end of the line you have decided to copy me and use what I have been CONSTANTLY telling you to do and provide diffs. Again as I have already said, I am done with you. You are not worth my time replying as you never listen and I will not repeat myself to you again.

Ironholds, come here and explain why you support a ban. BTW, I can't make any new accounts as OhNoitsJamie has blocked me from doing so, which he would not need to do if he unprotects my talkpage on El Machete Guerrero
We are allowed multiple accounts, yes, but not for the purpose of evading blocks. Ironholds (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes and I did not evade my block. My accounts are not sockpuppets and this is the reason I was blocked indefinitely. El Machete Guerrero

Thankyou Bwilkins, this is exactly what I have been getting at! Someone does need to show me where I abusively used my multiple accounts as sockpuppets, because I am telling you I never did, although I had the choice of doing so when the IP proceeded to do so. But I know this is wrong and against policy so I did not. El Machete Guerrero

Jeremy the CU did not find this and I in no way or form was avoiding scrutiny. Do not assert false information to mislead others, it is against policy. Asserting false information and attacking me!

So if I went thru your contribs for all your socks, I won't find personal attacks, edit-warring, or the like? 'Cuz if I do, you're screwed. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote myself: "Go ahead! Be my guest! I encourage it! What is EMG?! While you do this you can also see all my improvements to wikipedia which only helps me, so please do! And if you find I have been abusing my accounts let me know, because I am quite certain this will not be the case as they all concentrate on different areas of wikipedia."

Jeremy, you have failed to provide any diffs. Dylan says he will so I shall soon see.

Again, SheffieldSteel this is not a master account as my accounts are not sockpuppets. But like I said that is where I am wishing to request the unblock and when it is found not to be an abuse of multiple accounts, the others will automatically be unblocked. El Machete Guerrero
- SheffieldSteel, I am disapointed in you and did not think you would speak on my behalf and make such attacks on me as you did on the AN/I calling me a "troll". I was genuinely rooting for you not to lower yourself to such comments and had alot of respect for you until I saw those comments. I guess this ban proposal is like a snowball rolling down a hill, and it keeps collecting admins on the way.

OhNoitsJamie, come here and explain exactly what concept I am unclear on as I feel I am perfectly clear on every aspect especially the aspect where you protected my talkpage with no valid reason. And explain why you support a ban.

Provide diffs or retract your statements as I could say the exact same thing about you "Personal attacks, edit warring, sock-puppetry, block evasion, combativeness, wikilawyering, forum-shopping, you name it." and suggest you get banned and provide no diffs aswell. Infact I will say the exact same thing until you provide diffs for me. OhNoitsJamie should be banned because "Personal attacks, edit warring, sock-puppetry, block evasion, combativeness, wikilawyering, forum-shopping, you name it."

Dylan620, come here and explain why you endorse a ban. I will also note that in your reason for an endorsement you have broken wikipedia policy and have attacked me. Provide diffs otherwise it is against policy. I could say the exact same thing about you, it's easy. It's like me saying I was the first man on the moon and expecting people to believe me. But they wont because I don't have evidence!

I was endorsing a ban per Daedalus's nom, but have it your way. An evidence page will be under construction soon at User:Dylan620/Machete. In addition, I see from just above that you wish for admin Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to be banned; maybe you would like to provide some evidence? →Dyl@n 620 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I would not as he has not provided diffs for me. And you know or anyone else can see exactly what I am getting at with that reply so don't be smart.

Dylan don't listen to him, he does not speak for me. I speak for myself. He rebutted my unblock request point by point and I then refuted every point. He then rebuttaled and then I again refuted. He though, did not provide one diff. You say you are going to. So proceed to do so and I will reply to you accordingly.

Patience, Machete. I'm compiling diffs now. →Dyl@n 620 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Pat[reply]

Mendaliv, this is not sufficient enough at all and had I not been wrongly blocked in the first place and abused, I would have not needed to take such drastic measures! And you say my continued edit warring is warrant for a block, but what you do not mention at all is Daedalus969 and what should happen to him making over 50 reverts in edit wars. And what you fail to mention is it is my talkpage and I can remove what I want from it. I would like to see how you would act if you had the same unjustified block and abuse put on you. I am not sure if you could handle it as well as I have.

Thankyou Mendaliv for making the rest of the users aware that I am replying to them here, I really appreciate it. As you know I have left a reply for your endorsement of a ban on me. Could yo please reply, cheers El Machete Guerrero.

Jeremy, I have refuted every point, read them and then tell me what reason you have for supporting a ban on me.

neuro, come here and explain why you support a ban. Simply saying you do with no valid reason effectively excludes your vote in the decision.

Ricky81682, come here and explain why you support a ban.

Jauerback, this is completely false either prove it or retract it! Someone ban Jauerback as "negative outweighs positive". You see how easy it is to make completely unfounded statements.

Bwilkins what don't I get? I thought you were the only one who could see I was blocked on a completely baseless reason and that I was not using sockpuppets. Why do I have to be limited to one account? We are allowed to have multiple accounts and is the only reason I do have multiple accounts. Had I not been allowed to have more than one account I would not have more than one account. I don't see how this is so hard to understand, it's crystal clear to me. You can moniter all my accounts for bad edits, I have not used them for bad edits, I have used them to improve wikipedia and have done a great deal of help to Wikipedia. Just take a look at Daddy Yankee discography, I completely changed that article for the better. And these type of edits I have been doing all over wikipedia, that is why I have each different account concentrating on different areas. So I can split up the load. And mentor me? What do I need mentoring in? I feel like I know most policies and I also feel I have remainded true to all these policies. El Machete Guerrero
- Mendaliv, how can I chill out? I have been unfairly blocked not once but twice and the second time it was pretty much a ban. The first time I did not care as I had admitted to breaking the 3RR and conceded that I could and probably should be blocked. But I also mentioned there was no use in blocking me as I had stop the reverts and the page was protected. So then when the block was issued it was punitive and not preventative, and was just George choosing to flex his muscles and showboat. Then I was blocked indefinately by Nixeagle claiming I was using a sockpuppets when this was never, ever proven. And since then I have been constantly harrased, abused and attacked. So please explain to me how you would chill out if this happened to you? Because I doubt Ned Flanders himself could not have even handled the situation as well as I have. El Machete Guerrero
  - Let me put it this way; your use of multiple accounts, as you say above to work in different topic areas, is frowned upon at the very least, especially since you did not make it clear prior to the checkuser that the accounts were connected. While you don't feel this fits the definition of sockpuppetry, to outside observers your use of multiple accounts in this manner looks very bad. I'm asking you, with the best of intentions, to chill out, because I think the dispute here is as a result of several compounded misunderstandings. BMW is trying, very admirably, to encourage the community to give you another chance, and from all appearances you're spitting on his good intentions. I'm asking you to chill out because if you can it would go a long way in proving to the community that you're willing to work within our rules. I'm not saying this is fair, but from my perspective it's all you can do. Continuing to rail against everybody who tries to defuse the situation will only hurt your case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is it frowned upon exactly? I did not mention it prior to the checkuser as I did not need to. I don't have to connect them it is in wikipedia policy and if you read every one of my talkpage you will see I have quoted this somewhere. I don't feel it is sockpuppetry as it isn't! It does not fit the definition and I am allowed to have more than one account. It says this! How do I chill out though? What do I do to chill out? Stop defending myself? Because if I do not continue to defend myself against editors attacks then I am almost guarenteed to be banned. I need to prove what they are saying is wrong, otherwise people will believe the deceit. I know this I can read the AN/I and I am immensely grateful for BMW highlighting the fact that we are allowed multiple accounts and that no one has provided me with proof that I am avoiding scruting using sockpuppets. I am not sure what you mean by me spitting on his good intentions, as I have already told him that I am thankful for his help and what he is doing for me. I am willing and have always been willing to work within the rules of wikipedia, what does chilling out mean? Because I will "chill out" if I can understand exactly how to "chill out". If it means stop defending myself against slander though, I will not chill out. But if it means something else I am happy to chill out. In person I am a real chilled guy anyway and I get along with everyone, I am always told how easy going I am. So please explain what this means to me as I am clueless. El Machete Guerrero
      - As the Checkuser indicated, the apparent use of your alternate accounts was to avoid scrutiny. That is to say, you did so because you did not want your edits from one account to be connected to those from another account for some reason, and the variance of names of your accounts suggests that is the case. That sort of behavior is expressly mentioned at WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. There's been no good reason given why you needed to have multiple unconnected accounts, and apart from a genuine misunderstanding of the rules (which you've argued hasn't happened), the most obvious reason is abusive sockpuppetry. However, I'm going to suggest an alternative below, if you'll bear with me.
        This was not apparent at all and is the only way he could get away with calling me a sockpuppet master. I have multiple accounts because I am allowed to have multiple accounts, and I have already explained their purpose. So don't try and accuse me of ill intentions, my accounts having different names does not suggest anything. So don't make ill accusations and then say that the behaviour is expressly mentioned at WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, as I am well aware of the policy and let me quote myself once more for you, "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!". There has not needed to be any good reason given why I have multiple accounts, as let me remind you, I am allowed to. So wether or not you feel that there has been a good reason given or not given, your opinion has absolutely no merit or influence in the slightest. I am sorry, but this is the case. The only thing obvious to those who are hellbent against me or do not or will not understand that multiple accounts are allowed, is abusive sockpuppetry. Anyone who is aware of the policy or whom does not have a grudge against me should be well aware that we are permitted multiple accounts and we do not have to make them public. I will hear you out, but as this is leading from your belief that I am abusively using socks, I do not know if I will agree with what you say next.
      - The situation you describe resembles a catch-22; if you continue to argue the way you have been, I can promise you that the ban will go from being de facto to de jure very quickly. However, you're right in that if you stop, roll over and die, the de facto ban will continue. What I propose is that you create a new section on your talk page and do this for clarity's sake:
        Admit that you've used alternate accounts and will cease doing so from here on out. This isn't an admission of sockpuppetry but will help establish that further blocking and banning will cease being preventative and become punitive.
        
        Agree that if the community will allow it, you'll be glad to continue editing constructively, and will be glad to take advice from here on out.
        
        Apologize for previously edit warring and promise that you'll be careful to avoid it in the future.
        
        Accept mentorship from another, more experienced editor for a period to be determined.
        
        Abstain from making references to individual editors' involvements in your case, as that will be viewed as goading.
      - How does that sound? The particular wording doesn't really matter, but the point is to make it clear you want to participate constructively and not waste everyone's time. If you can agree to restrictions, I believe it will obviate the need to block and ban you. But really, you need to consider this as genuinely your last chance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If I have been arguing then everyone else has been to, as it take two to tango and an argument needs more than one person. You choose to use hard words like argue, when I choose to view my comments as just that, comments or replies, they are discussions.
        I have admitted to using multiple accounts. It is obvious I have used all my accounts talkpages. Why should I cease using them all when I am permitted to? All blocking I have recieved has been punitive and not preventative, so you can see how I would be sceptical thinking this would prevent any further blocks.
        
        I have agreed to this, and am happy to take advice that is not a threat under disguise.
        
        I have apologised for edit warring and am quite happy to apologise again. I know this was wrong and for that I am sorry. I will promise in future, even if I feel like I am reverting vandalism, that I will not break the 3RR and I will contact an administrator for help.
        
        I don't care, I am willing to accept mentorship from an admin. But as I have already mentioned, I feel like I am knowledgable on most of the policies and aspect of wikipedia. But of course help from someone who has been on wikipedia longer than I, will never be turned down by myself.
        
        How can I be seen as goading when, I am the one who is unable to edit outside of this page, I am the one who has proposition of a ban on me, and I am the one everyone is defaming. I need to defend myself, so I need to reply and address all comments made about me by all the editors. Otherwise people may start to believe the unfounded statements.
        
        I do want to participate constructively and I have been. I am not wasting anyone's time, everyone has became invovled in this by their own choice. I did not tell them to comment on me. I don't know why I should consider it as my last chance as I was punitively blocked both times. The only two times in my time as an editor on wikipedia. El Machete Guerrero

Unblock Request

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).

Xcahv8 (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:

This unblock request has been declined multiple times already (see the Talk pages of the other socks). Rather than consider this as a case of abusing multiple accounts, abusing the unblock template, or forum shopping, I think it best to just decline this particular instance. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:00, 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.

Jéské Couriano

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.

You've waived your right to freedom of speech on Wikipedia by editing it. Same goes for any other private website. And asking another parent is only going to make admins reject your requests more. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

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!

Creating alts to avoid scrutiny, as the Checkuser found, is indeed sockpuppetry, EMG. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser did not find this! And speak proper english, what is EMG?

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.

No right! You are wrong! I have not "provably" violated any other policy. Jeremy, either provide diffs or it is an attack on me!

He said provably, not "probably". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof, provide proof otherwise don't assert false information.

Then you apparently are blind or have selective reading abilities. Your revert-warring at Reggaeton is a cut-and-dried case of tendentious editing, and your constant accusing me of things without proof (as you've done above) is a personal attack. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! "you apparently are blind or have selective reading abilities". tendentious editing comes under the 3RR, learn the difference between an essay and policy! You should already know as you are an admin. You have constantly attacked me! Not the other way around!

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.

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.

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).

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!

Again, you have selective reading abilities: Using alts to evade scrutiny or sanctions is explicitly disallowed, and using them to evade a block (User:El Machete Guerrero 2) even moreso.

Again, stop commenting on me! I know this and I did not use (User:El Machete Guerrero 2) to evade a block. I never entered the mainspace, why would I bring obvious attention to me if I was evading a block?!

Using a sock to evade sanctions is still using a sock to avoid a block. El Machete Guerrero's TP was locked because of your behavior on it; you moved to El Machete Guerrero 2's TP to avoid the prot. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was locked for an invalid reason and I did not abuse my talkpage at all! I was forced to create another talkpage to defend myself. I did not avoid a block, I avoided a wrongful protection of my talkpage with only one purpose, to gag me!

Multiple uses of the {{unblock}} template is indeed a legitimate reason to protect. Users generally only get two or three bites of the apple before their talk page is locked down; you got four. Also, removing sockpuppet notices that are not obviously vandalism and edit-warring over them ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) is an inappropriate use of your talk page while blocked.-Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, only abuse of the {{unblock}} template is a legitimate reason to protect. Something which I did not do. Removing sockpuppet templates when they are false and hence are an attack is allowed and is completely in my power to do so.

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.

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!

Checkuser comments: These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny. As I've said (and WP:SOCK supports) using sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny is an invitation to have them blocked. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I have also said this. And I did not and "These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny." in no way or form proves they were! Which I have also said 10 millions times, which you also know. And you know why it does not? Because there is no proof! It is completely false and if it is the checkuser who said it, I assume a thin veil for a fishing performed CU. If not the CU, then just an completely unfounded statement.

So if I reviewed the contribs of you and your socks, I won't find any edits that would require sanctions, EMG? Because if I do find 'em, then it blows your statement that these socks are benign out of the water. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead! Be my guest! I encourage it! What is EMG?! While you do this you can also see all my improvements to wikipedia which only helps me, so please do! And if you find I have been abusing my accounts let me know, because I am quite certain this will not be the case as they all concentrate on different areas 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. 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.

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.

Baloney. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that do? There still are no diffs! Where are the links that connect me to El Perso and the IP?! They are no where!

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.

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.

Actually, stopping editing an article and then switching to another account is a common sockpuppeteer tactic, and so I can see the justification for the check. Two socks cannot edit the article simultaneously. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can see it, you are against me! How could you not see it?! I would be completely shocked if you could not see it. Fact is there is no justification as there were no diffs, and things of this nature dealing with someone's privacy must have valid reasons and diffs.

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.

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!".

Checkusers can still block for violations of WP:SOCK found during the course of their duties, even if it's tangential to the case, so I'm afraid you won't be able to cite GWH's statement there and use it as a technicality on which the block can be overturned. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a technacality it is the truth! I have not used sockpuppets only multiple accounts! George conceded, I think Mendaliv knows, and I also think Bwilkins is aware. The rest of you are just hellbent against me!

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]

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

Again, alts may not be used to avoid scrutiny of one's edits or blocks for same. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I KNOW. Do yourself a favour and 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!"

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

CU says otherwise: These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny. Avoiding scrutiny with alts is expressly forbidden. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CU does not say otherwise, get that through your head! I am not sure if this is an attack but if it is I will retract it and reword it. But you get the message. El Machete Guerrero

Note

Sheffield Steel told me to take the page to mfd.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 06:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the removal of what you consider to be personal attacks against you. Not the whole talkpage, I don't even think this is possible as it is my talkpage. El Machete Guerrero

And he did not tell you to attack me and assert false information in the process! I am amazed how lucky you have been thus far in not getting blocked. I was blocked for 18 reverts with a blocked IP using sockpuppets, and you have not even been blocked yet for making over 50 reverts. El Machete Guerrero.

Stop exagerrating. You know it was less than 40, but that is still besides the point. In the mfd I cited that you were attacking me without evidence. I don't see any attacks there, so how about you quote me and cite the specific diff instead of throwing accusations.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 07:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it isn't what I believe to be personal attacks. Those are personal attacks, because you have refused to cite evidence, and therefore they are personal attacks. I suggest you read WP:NPA.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 07:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not exagerrating and you very well know this, there could be more than 70 I can't be bothered counting though. And I already have said over and over and over and over again. So I am not going to repeat myself, go and read your comments and go and read the talkpage for Sabre Savage. Even in your reverts you attacked me, you cannot tell me to "shut up" and you know this, and you know all the other times you have attacked me so dont "play dumb". Even in your Mfd you broke policy which is unbelievable! Unbelievable for most people, but with you I am in no way surprised. And don't tell me to read it, you go and read all the attacks on Sabre Savage and polystyla and then you can apologise for constantly attacking me with no diffs. I am the one who has been asking for diffs from the beginning, not you! You are only now copying me saying the same thing. El Machete Guerrero

Yes, you are. You originally said 40. But as said, that is beside the point. You cited a single diff, a diff of me adding a sock template when a check user had confirmed this. I was asked at the checkuser to add the templates, so I did. You have yet to provide a single diff backing up your claims of harrassment and Wikistalking. Wikistalking is stalking an editors edits in the mainspace and reverting them. I have not done this, so your claim that I have is unfounded. Every time I told you to back up your claims, you refused to and instead reverted my request that you do. To this date, the only thing you have cited is my addition of the sock template, and this adddition does not justify your other claims against me.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 07:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with you, and you are not worth my time. I will no longer repeat myself again so don't bother saying anything more as I will just ignore you and remove it from my talkpage. CU didn't confirm, you weren't asked, you have yet to provide a diff for you attacks which were made first and I requested diffs about two days before you decided to use the policy you have been constantly breaking against me, the addition does justify what I have said. El Machete Guerrero

Bwilkins

Can I just say that you're going about your unblock completely wrong here. From what I see, you have indeed broken some policies. Rather than rail against admins, you have a golden chance to simply say "ok, my bad ...". If you realllllly want to be an editor at Wikipedia, it's probably time to back down from this WP:POINTy line of action, admit and apologize, and ride out one short block, rather than be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as a whole (which may include a range of IP addresses to really keep you away). Your "method" above has been tried before by others - and will only succeed in extreme blockage. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say this unless you explain yourself. I have nothing against you Bwilkins and you are infact the only one on that AN/I who highlighted the fact that we are allowed multiple accounts and no one has proven my accounts to be sockpuppets which I am truly grateful for. So don't feel like I am having a go at you as I am not (I think I just have an abrupt or hard way of talking to people and I am straight forward and straight to the point, there is no stuffing about with me. This is probably why people get on the defensive with me, and if so I'm sorry I can't help it. That is just how I am). But if you are going to make such claims about me then please back them up with diffs and explain to me how I have. I in no way or form feel I should say "ok, my bad ..." when I have been unfairly blocked a first time, punative and not preventative in nature. And then I have been unfairly effectively banned a second. Then I have been constantly attacked and abused by admins and have had all my pages except this one protected so they can gag me. If I am attacked I defend myself, I choose to fight and not fly. You may be the opposite and that's okay it's different for each person. But there is no way I am backing down to my morals and standards and taking this lying down, and will fight for what I believe until the day I die. I have nothing to admit for and nothing to apologise for so either show me or don't tell me to do this. What "method" are you talking about exactly? Thankyou for the advice, but I don't need comments like "and will only succeed in extreme blockage". They do not help the situation and give off an impression which is undeniable. El Machete Guerreo

Yes, I am trying to help. Ok, here's a simple one: your main account got blocked. The minute you came back onto Wikipedia during that block using another account (whether you had created it 5 years ago or yesterday), it is considered to be attempting to evade a block, and is considered to be an abuse of multiple accounts. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main account did get blocked as did all my other accounts(I think). I don't know how it be considered to be evading a block when I did not enter the mainspace and only used it in my requests for an unblock. I wouldn't have needed to use another account had my original talkpage not been protected for no valid reason. El Machete Guerrero

The situation in short (from a neutral point of view):

Your main account was blocked for a simple 72hrs for 3RR.
- Yes, puntive and not preventative in nature.
In your unblock requests, you became increasingly angry and offensive towards admins and other editors (that was a huge mistake - always deal only with providing proof, NEVER attack, and ALWAYS seem polite - see the guide to how to make an unblock request).
After a number of these increasingly "angry" unblock requests, your talkpage was locked to prevent disruption.
The minute you came back to make unblock requests using a different username, it was de facto proof of sockpuppetry/abuse of multiple accounts - you honestly should have just sat out the 3 days at that point - OR sent a polite e-mail to the blocking admin to make your point.
Because you were socking once, they went hunting for other accounts, as per policy. So, at that point, your original possibly valid use of multiple accounts became null-and-void - indeed, you will likely never be permitted to hold more than one account again.

Let me make the short form shorter: you MAY have been right to ask for an unblock, but you did it wrong. Because of that, you had a page lock. Coming back with an alternate account absolutely screwed yourself over, even though that was not your intent - it's very clear in the rules, however (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make your responses to ANI Here

I shall transclude this section from your talk page to ANI, so that you can respond and participate. Insert your responses between the noinclude tags. This was done off of the suggestion of Duvora(I hope I spelled that right).— Dæ dαlus^Contribs

Proposing a ban against me