You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Smashville^talk 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was attacked, and defended myself. I PERFORMED NO VANDALISM WHATSOEVER AND THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT I DID SO.

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for vandalism. You were blocked because your account was being used solely for disruptive editing and harassment of other users. — Smashville^talk 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I was attacked, and defended myself. I PERFORMED NO VANDALISM WHATSOEVER and there is no claim that I did so, AFAICT so I can't even defend against it specifically. You say above that I was blocked for, and I quote: "repeated Wikipedia:Vandalism"

Decline reason:

I cannot find any evidence in your contribution history that you are interested in participating in making a better encyclopedia, so there's no real reason for you to have an active account. It's easy to find evidence that you are User:IReceivedDeathThreats. That account is blocked; it is not okay to create a new account to avoid your block. If you have fully solved the problems that led to your block, and can make a persuasive case that you are likely to bring more good writing and less incivility to the encyclopedia in the future, you should do that at your original account. Considering that you've been using this account to edit in uncivil ways, though, that doesn't seem probable right now. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:07, 2 October 2008 (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.

Who blocked me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIRDT&diff=242498363&oldid=242452927 suggests one user: Smashville, but the block log suggests another user, Orderinchaos.

No oddity. He blocked, I noticed there was no template and I applied it. --Smashville^talk 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... OK. --IRDT (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've had a longer look at your talk page, I see that you were asked to change your user name, so I withdraw the charge of sockpuppetry. However, I'm still not willing to unblock, because you do appear to be harassing other users, using poor manners, and making those attacks based on your own incomplete understanding of the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. Going away, for now. Sorry so much admin effort was expended on this. I'd like to go back to productive editing, as defending myself is obviously not working. --IRDT (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'd like to go back to productive editing, as what I see as defending myself is obviously both not working and not permitted (considered disruptive). Final request this month.

Decline reason:

I will have to decline your immediate unblock request due to the fact that it is so soon after everything else and there is a risk of you changing your mind again. However,I honestly have no reason not to believe you, therefore I have reduced your block time to 24 hours. You will be able to edit again tomorrow. — Smashville^talk 16:51, 2 October 2008 (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.

Please note - because sometimes it's hard to see past "Declined" - that your block is in fact being lifted tomorrow. --Smashville^talk 17:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hit conflicts adding this (before you'd replied):Thanks, that's fine. --IRDT (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding here, since this is the account you are using.) Now that you are unblocked, you should feel free to open an WP:RFCN on your old username. I don't think there's much point unblocking the other account to start that discussion when you can just as easily use this one for now. As for the Blue Hippo edit, I honestly don't see a problem: it was almost 2 years ago and hasn't continued. And even if it happened today I wouldn't be very concerned, because the material being removed was unsourced and very negative. I would perhaps ask the IP to register an account and declare their WP:COI up front, but there was nothing wrong with the edits. Mangojuice^talk 17:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion. I'm not willing to act on my own while there are admins who have supported the block. Can you explain why you want to keep this username? And what do you think of the objections that have been raised to it? Mangojuice^talk 19:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued disruptive editing. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MCB (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:ANI#User:IRDT.

Curent content:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive481#Questionable Username
• IRDT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IReceivedDeathThreats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I re-blocked User:IRDT, this time indefinitely. His 24-hour block expired, and the first edit he made was to go back to his old User Talk page and start in on the "death threat" stuff again. He then started agitating on Mangojuice's user talk page about the block on his old name [1] [2]. Clearly, this is not what was meant by coming back with a new user name and being a good editor.

As I pointed out in the archived thread linked above, the patience of the community is not inexhaustable, and tying up our time, energy, and resources arguing with someone who seems to be here only to make some utterly inexplicable point and engage in Wikidrama is disruptive and unproductive to the community. --MCB (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the block, this is pointy to the extreme. Between these two accounts, they've been active for two-and-a-half years, and only have 122 edits to the mainspace. Dayewalker (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for this block. I didn't agree with the original username block, and I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the "agitating" on Mangojuice's talk page. Even if the community decides he can't have his original name, I see no reason to not give him a chance with the abbreviated version. His behavior hasn't been great, but I can understand why he'd be annoyed with recent events. --Onorem♠Dil 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be the first to admit: if even half the recent allegations against me were true, an indefinite ban would be appropriate. What policy (or even guideline) did I violate by making an edit that I had specifically been approved to make? People keep insulting me by saying I'm being pointy, but, well, I can't see the connection between any editing I've done any anything pointy. Mangojuice had chosen to leave open the possibility of him/her allowing me to keep my username. I explored it, and that's labeled "continued disruptive editing" and considered justification for a block? If I'm going to be blocked, at least a specific charge that's actually true should be made. When there are edits by a PR firm to shift the POV of some of the articles I've been editing (see the proof I posted to Mangojuice's talk page) it's not appropriate to IAR. It's not like I'm some vandal (and note - I've done a fair bit of anti-vandal work, where by 'vandal', I refer to the official definition.) --IRDT (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onorem, would you please open an WP:RFAR for me, as I cannot? What with 4 users ok with me keeping my name, and all the discussion, it needs to go to a higher authority.

Please respond at the bottom of this .

BTW, I just (v. belatedly) noticed that 208.48.6.195 is assigned to Blue Hippo (per mtr) and had been attempting to censor its own page. Sample diff. How do you think I should proceed? AN/I? ^{Proof: URL:http://www.fifi.org/services/traceroute?hostname=208.48.6.195&nprobes=1&resolved=yes&submit=Traceroute. Accessed: 2008-10-08. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5bQ9eOLlF)} Is it possible to run http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=TronixCounty on the full page edit history? It would seem to me that all (anon and user) editing from these IPs might need to be blocked.

Likewise, [Dittus], a public relations firm, has been editing via 12.160.63.70, e.g. diff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRDT (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your response, but I can't find an answer therein. Are you saying you won't unblock IReceivedDeathThreats at all? Here's what I am asking:

Thank you for being a voice of reason. ... I need to think about things in light of what I've learned: I've read the current RFCN but my experience to date suggests engaging that or a new RFCN would be highly counterproductive. I'll hold out for you (who wrote "...I also don't think you need to be forced to change it...") to read my unblock request above and decide to honor it.

Mangojuice, please respond; did you mean I don't have to change my username? Did you mean that's your opinion and you will unblock me on that basis? Or did you just mean that's your opinion and you will unblock me only for the purpose of further discussion?--IRDT (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion. I'm not willing to act on my own while there are admins who have supported the block. Can you explain why you want to keep this username? And what do you think of the objections that have been raised to it? Mangojuicetalk 19:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I can do those things, but my experience to date suggests engaging in a RFCN would be highly counterproductive. If I felt I could have a debate on the merits of the username IReceivedDeathThreats, then I'd be up for it. Do you think that could happen? If you do, why? What could you or I do to make that happen? The discussions to date were anything but a debate on the merits. Instead, the ANI and UAA were mostly blatantly false statements and other trollbait, and discussions thereof. And then there was the apparent oversight. As for the RFC, the link to it here is broken; where is it? I've already said "I do not feel comfortable elaborating on why I feel I need to retain the name IReceivedDeathThreats." --IRDT (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the more I think it over, I don't think a discussion would be worthwhile, and I don't think there's any possible good reason to go back to your ill-advised previous username. Here is the discussion -- the feedback was basically unanimous. While I don't like the block-first-discuss-later approach for borderline usernames, in the end, you should be forced to change your username given the objections if you can't counter them, and you are apparently not interested in doing that. Mangojuice^talk 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I felt I could have a debate on the merits of the username IReceivedDeathThreats, then I'd be up for it. Do you think that could happen? Given that, as I recently pointed out at the start of this thread (on IReceivedDeathThreats' talk page), 2 admins didn't think I should have to change my username, I don't see how you can say that it was "basically unanimous". Do you want to reconsider saying that? --IRDT (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]