User talk:Bicycles to India
Bicycles to India (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This account was being used for the sole purpose of contributing at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Maybe you should read it..., which Jimbo at least was perfectly happy with [1]. As far as I can tell, that position hasn't changed, so I'd appreciate some common sense from admins who think they're entitled to block socks of MalikPeters on sight (on the assumption the first block was correct), when that misreading of policy is precisely the issue being discussed over there. Alternatively, you could go one better and simply unblock the MalikPeters account unless or until there is community consensus that it was in violation of WP:SOCK from the minute it was created. ErrantX is claiming this is indeed the case over there, but as ever, the proof is non-existent. Malik Peters (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You do not seem to get the point. The more accounts you, as a blocked user, create to circumvent your block the less likely you are to be unblocked. And incidentally, while Jimbo says he favours tolerance your interpretation of his comment differs from mine. He could have, had he chosen to, unblocked you himself.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Bicycles to India (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Of course I get the bloody point. Don't talk to me as if I'm stupid Mr Bradbury. If I am to be blocked mid-discussion just because admins think they are better placed to decide who talks to Jimbo than himself, then I'd appreciate someone actually telling Jimbo that I actually have been blocked. I was using this account, clearly as Malik, for four days straight in that discussion on his page before this block was applied out of the blue. The fact that it was a block evading sock was not news to anybody, except the blocking admin Jpgordon apparently. Is Jimbo supposed to know that he must check each day whether someone has blocked me, to figure out why I've just stopped responding mid-discussion? Even though the only way Jpgordon could have become aware of this account was by reading the discussion, where it's beyond obvious my presence as a 'block evading sock' was known about and accepted, because the poor block that led to that situation was the subject of the complaint. It's bad enough I had to put up with Secret's attempts to censor the complaint before it had even been read, this is now getting surreal. Seriously, get your collective acts together. Try and let the left hand know what the right is doing maybe? If you admins want to use your powers to second guess Jimbo this much and this often, then please at least have the courtesy to let him in on the act. The discussion over there is about your various approaches to WP:SOCK blocks and their reviews; you'd think someone here would see how futile it is to then keep blocking me and lecturing me about what I must or mustn't do to get unblocked regarding WP:SOCK. Jesus. Malik Peters (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Regardless of how long it took for somebody to do it, block evasion is not a legitmate use of an alternative account, and block evading socks are to be blocked. The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ridiculous
[edit]This is fucking ridiculous. You idiots haven't even got the integrity to let Jimbo know that you're second guessing his stated wishes and randomly blocking people who've been talking on his page for days while he was completely aware of the nature of the account. You utter idiots. What a total collective power trip. You know full well I can create more socks, and I'll be using them to post at his page unless or until he says he's had enough of the discussion. You as simpleton block button pushers have got no power over me in this matter; had you done your research into what's been going on, you would have realise that by now. But you haven't, so obviously you don't. I only requested an unblock here to see if any of you had the sense you were born with and weren't about to repeat the mistakes made with the original account, which despite the constant lies being told over there about consensus, very much has a proper claim of legitimate use. But as we see, blocking is apparently the only way that these claims can be maintained in the public eye. COI much? Fucking brain dead self-serving automatons the lot of you. Four days clear use on Jimbo's page is not "regardless", it's beyond bloody significant as far as any sense of 'block on sight' logic goes for this account, but it's precisely because you think in this way, rather than the way a normal person would, that your collective wisdom fails to rise above the clue levels of even the most efficient government department. Total fuckwits. "Regardless.....block evading socks are to be blocked". No shit Sherlock. Did you honestly think I didn't know that? Are you trying to make it more than obvious that you haven't been following what this has been all about? That you aren't really aware as to why this account was created? Have a listen to yourself. Would you even get a shelf stacking job while displaying this amount of nuanced intelligence to your task? Not bloody likely, and thank fucking God for that. Malik Peters (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Talk Page Usage
[edit]Talk pages may not be used for suggesting edits while blocked. Blocked means no editing, by any means. The use of a talk page when blocked is to discuss unblocking. Further attempts to edit will mean access to this page will be blocked as well. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you a-holes? Now I've got yet another automaton on my case. Are any of you actually capable of independent thought? Or have you all signed a contract when you were given your bits, to turn into clueless robots, who can only follow the simplest of policy instructions. Socks are to be blocked always. Talk pages of blocked users cannot request edits. You must not write on the walls. Fucking hell, YOU LOT WOULD TURN THE MOST MILD MANNERED PERSON INTO A CRAZED COP KILLER IF HE EVER MET THE LIKES OF YOU IN THE REAL WORD, IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAD TO ACTUALLY MAKE ANY REAL WORLD DECISIONS THAT HAD REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES. Go and tell Jimbo why that discussion has stopped mid-flow, that's all I ask. LET HIM DECIDE WHETHER A DISCUSSION HE SAID WAS OK TO CONTINUE ON HIS OWN TALK PAGE, CAN ACTUALLY CONTINUE WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM BLUNDERING HAM FISTED ADMINS LIKE THE ABOVE. That's the only edit I am 'requesting'. Anyone would think that you guys actually want me to keep creating socks? Maybe that's the way your minds work. Maybe your so short of work in the admin department, you have to do your best to create the conditions in which violations are inevitable. I cannot think of any other way to explain the stupidity that has been displayed over this issue. Malik Peters (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- To "Malik Peters": I am also shocked that this username was blocked without realizing that a dialog about the problems with "excessive sock-blocking" was being discussed on Jimbo's talk-page, at his request. I think many people can understand the righteous indignation that you are expressing in your messages, and the quick responses from admins are more proof that the standard-operating-procedure replies are to "punish the user" regardless of the mental anguish being inflicted and observed in replies. Fine, so using the intense language did not cause the admins to reverse their actions, and hence, posting harsh responses will not be effective to move forward. Meanwhile, I was hoping someone as intelligent as yourself could help improve the policies and admin button-pushing practices to avoid these problems in the future. It is plainly wrong of them to treat someone such as yourself in this manner, or to similarly treat a Member of Parliament, or U.S. Congressman, foreign diplomat, famous celebrity, or in fact any cooperative user who has clearly stated the intent of the alternative account (numerous times). I hope this continued blocking of accounts will not totally demoralize you, and perhaps some methods can be found to improve the sock-blocking policies and admin practices. Perhaps you could contact other anonymous users to join in the discussion, not as "WP:Meat_puppets" but as people who shared your views without being controlled by your direction, and thus not appearing as "Malik Peters" in the discussions. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
December 2011
[edit]
lists.wikimedia.org. The Bushranger One ping only 20:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)