User talk:Cartoon Buffoon

August 2013

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Cailil ^talk 18:05, 20 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Blocks are supposed to prevent harm to Wikipedia. All this block does is prevent me from stopping harm coming to Wikipedia. User:Mo ainm has recently broken 1RR on Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland [1][2]. He was about to get away with this with only a warning at AE because User:Cailil is apparently unaware of his full editting history. By blocking me, all Cailil is doing is stopping me from pointing out that when Mo ainm makes statements like he has "never been an edit warrior", the truth is that he is infact lying; because Mo ainm is one and the same person as User:BigDunc. The fact that he has got a very relevant history of 1RR and other violations in this topic area, which ended with a warning that his next block would likely be indef, is not really something anyone should be prevented from highlighting at AE, whatever their own apparent history. Mo ainm is as unrepentant for this violation as BigDunc was for their repeated violations. This is not the sort of thing that needs to be hidden from other AE admins or indeed other good faith editors working in this topic area, as it is cast iron evidence of long term (5+ years) recidivism, behaviour which is wholly disruptive and entirely against the ethos of collaborative editting. Given that pointing this out at AE was the only sort of edit I've made, it's not clear to me what Cailil is trying to acheive with this block, except perhaps to ensure his mistake in not fully investigating Mo ainm's history and not acting on their long term behaviour is not discovered. Cartoon Buffoon (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block is appropriate. You do not address the reason for it, i.e., abuse of multiple accounts. See also WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 19:43, 20 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I addressed the reason for the block directly and clearly - my prior history is entirely irrelevant given that my edits are aligned with the broader goal of protecting Wikipedia, and blocks are only supposed to be applied to prevent harm to Wikipedia. Blocks are not supposed to stop people protecting Wikipedia, yet this one does, which is why it is wholly invalid. For all anyone here knows, my real account could be User:Jimbo Wales, and I'm just experimenting to see how seriously Wikipedia deals with information concerning serious abuses of the site depending on where the report comes from. I'm sure he would not look kindly on admins ignoring evidence of long term abuse like this just because the reporter is supposedly "abusing multiple accounts" (especially when no evidence of abuse of multiple accounts is even provided - it's not a blockable offence to be familiar with cases like Mo/Dunc). I don't think he would look kindly on such evidence being dissappeared from the official record either. Cartoon Buffoon (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This account is being used in clear violation of WP:ILLEGIT #3. Talk page access removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2013 (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.