Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel so negatively towards the project; however, your contributions at AdminWatch talk are unconstructive. I hope you can see that it's frustrating to us that you won't engage with the discussion at hand. I believe you should resolve your issues through established channels if you believe you've been unfairly treated. If you think an admin breaches the policy in relation to yourself once the AdminWatch process is live, you are welcome to notify this. It is not a retrospective process.

Because your postings are overwhelmingly negative, I ask that you remove them. Otherwise, I'll do this myself in about 14 hours. You are welcome to contribute constructively after that, but I must warn you that if you subsequently reinstate the posts, I will ask for action to be taken to prevent this recurring.

I do hope that you choose the positive pathway; I'm not trying to stifle your views—they are simply better communicated in more appropriate places on WP. Tony (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You no doubt have been on the receiving end of actions of evil admins, so you're a chappy with axes to grind. Note that AdminWatch has been created to tackle just the sort of abuses which you may have been a victim of. If I were you, I would look to Tony as an ally in the path to redressing the scales of justice on WP. I would urge you to sit down, have a cup of coffe -second thoughts, no, coffee is a stimulant - take a few deep breaths, chant Om a few times. Once your blood pressure is back to below 120/80 and your sedentary pulse is at below 70, kindly let us have a few concrete and varied past examples of such abuse; it would also be valuable if you would share some suggestions as to how you believe the AdminWatch process should deal with these abuses. I think you are in a very good position to share your direct experience and help construct a process which will word. I am sure you are intelligent enough to know that ranting and throwing insults are likely to have a deleterious effect in achieving your goals. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be an contributor on Wikipedia that is only used for vandalism. Please stop. You are welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue. Cheers, MHLU^talk 18:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOCK#LEGIT, Segregation and Security, Section 3: I keep this account to avoid receiving harassing emails or phone calls while entering into discussion with other Wikipedia users. This is not a "vandalism" account and will never enter the wikipedia article space. WhoWatches (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3 says "A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle...". Whilst MHLU - who isn't an admin by the way - was wrong to drop a vandalism template on your userpage, equally I don't see a "highly controversial article" being edited here. Black Kite 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are people who commented in the AdminWatch MFD who know both my email address and phone number, I consider them within my social/professional circles (thankfully not family at least) and have no desire to deal with any emails/phone calls related to this discussion. Therefore, you are incorrect in not seeing a "highly controversial article" in question. WhoWatches (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a user subpage not an article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've had your fun, this is a disruptive single-purpose account, p[lease go back to your main account now. This account is blocked. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 2 January 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

This block is clearly unjustified and has no reason to happen. I have no desire to receive phone calls or emails regarding the discussion I was in.

Decline reason:

Can you please give a good reason as to why you should be unblocked other than 'unjustified'? I'm sure you find it is, but the blocking admin obviously did not think so. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 10:12, 2 January 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have repeatedly explained why I created this account, what the account would be used for (and have NOT gone outside the bounds I specified), and the portion of policy which allows quite explicitly for this. I believe this block is a violation of WP policy as it is entirely punitive and without merit, solely for the purpose of threatening me for honestly discussing my feelings regarding the situation of Wikipedia to date. It is somewhat ironic that this block was placed just minutes after I had placed a comment regarding the negative effects that blocks with a primary purpose of the prevention of dialogue have not only on the ability to conduct dialogue, but on the attitude of normal editors towards all administrators when abused in such a manner. WhoWatches (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Using alternative accounts to hide your main wikipedia identity for editing of policy related pages was prohibited by the arbitration committee after the privatemusings case. You must use your main account for these edits. There is no justification to use an alternative account for these edits. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:56, 2 January 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I disagree. I refuse to use my main account and be subjected to the risk of phone calls and emails regarding this issue. I request a FAIR hearing, though I know simply for the views I have stated that this is highly unlikely to ever happen. WhoWatches (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have had a fair hearing and you have had plenty of time to air your views. As your last unblock request highlighted, in the privatemusings arbcom, specific link here, sockpuppets solely for use in policy debates are forbidden. — Woody (talk) 14:19, 2 January 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This block is clearly unjustified and has no reason to happen. I have no desire to receive phone calls or emails regarding the discussion I was in.

Decline reason:

Does not meet legit sock requirements; you are not editing articles. You are not helping the project by soapboxing with this account. Tan | 39 17:49, 2 January 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I disagree. I refuse to use my main account and be subjected to the risk of phone calls and emails regarding this issue. I request a FAIR hearing, though I know simply for the views I have stated that this is highly unlikely to ever happen. Should the constant abusive conduct I am seeing here continue (including the ridiculous lock of this talkpage earlier), I will be forced to boldly WP:IAR anyways. WhoWatches (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

And we'll revert, block, ignore anyways. This is specifically why we don't allow alternate accounts to be used to evade scrutiny. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 2 January 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

not only is trying to change policy midstream just to "get" someone in appallingly poor faith, so is the amount of nonsense I'm being put through, so is the ridiculous level of persecution, and especially so is the nonsense from Woody accusing someone else of being me while I'm blocked. Do your worst, I know all your tricks. WP:BOLD, WP:IAR apply, the bullshit from a so-called "authority" that has no community support left outside of a corrupt cabal does not, and even if I did NOT have to deal with the worry about receiving phone calls or emails on this topic, I'm not about to waste my real account dealing in this discussion while 1000+ abusive administrators are now just waiting to try this trick on the real thing. WhoWatches (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No further reason for unblock has been given, so declined per all 5 unblock requests above. Given the views in this particular "request", I am now protecting the page. — Black Kite 22:27, 2 January 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.