User talk:Magellan32
Magellan32, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
|
Hi Magellan32!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Magellan32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand the reason I was blocked. I believe the edits that I have made as Magellan32 are all contructive and I will endeavour to avoid repeating the mistakes I made as Offender9000 Magellan32 (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You will need to request unblock from your original account; block evasion is not well thought of here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 08:23, 8 February 2014 (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.
Magellan32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not able to request unblock from my original account as the talk page is blocked. Besides which I don't want to use that account any more. I need a fresh start. Magellan32 (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2014 (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.
- Given that you've continued to use Wikipedia to pursue your personal views, I still don't think that you really are here to contribute to neutral encyclopaedia articles. I note that your reaction to being blocked last time was to use this as a further weapon in your campaign against one of the people I blocked you for attacking ([1]) with real-life negative consequences for that person ([2]) and stress for a Wikipedia editor you argued was working for them [3]. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Magellan32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It is hard to respond to comments like this which contain absolutely no evidence and are based on assumptions and personal allegations. It is not dissimilar to the unfounded attacks Simon Lyall made only about a year ago which led to a lengthy mediation process. Unfortunately, Simon was entirely unwilling to compromise and the mediation went nowhere. Ever since Simon in effect 'lost' that discussion, other editors have ganged up on me. Eventually, Nick-D joined in and banned me as Offender9000 without giving me any prior warning of his intention to do so and without requesting further mediation. Now recent edits I have made have been deleted in their entirety without any consideration of their validity. All of this suggests that there is a group of editors who are more concerned with enforcing the rules against 'offenders' than working to improve the quality of Wikipedia pages. Given this personal animosity towards me (and do anything I contribute) I would like to request that whoever decides to review my request to be unblocked is allowed to make that decision based on their own analysis. Nick-D clearly has a personal agenda against anything I contribute and a number of editors have supported him, including StuartYeates. When three or four editors gang up on one person who is trying to make a contribution to the best of their ability, this constitutes bullying. I cannot compete with it. I request that you all leave me alone and let an editor who has not previously been involved bring fresh eyes to this situation. Magellan32 (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Reading through the commentary (from both sides of the aisle) and case history, I do not feel comfortable unblocking this account because of its abuse of multiple accounts and surrounding issues. I do not see how this account can be productive based on its history and what seems to be a contempt for this project (calling users bullies, a dictatorship, etc.). only (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2014 (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.
See what I mean. Daniel Case reads your comment and without knowing anything about the case at all, continues the ban. How fair or democratic is that? That's how dictatorships operate. Guilty as charged. The defendant doesn't even get to present their case...Magellan32 (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you / were you 122.62.39.72?
[edit]I notice that you appear to admit above to being User:Offender9000. Are you (or were you) also the 122.62.39.72 who created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stuartyeates/Archive? Stuartyeates (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Mediation proceedings are privileged
[edit]As has been mentioned to you in the past, mediation proceedings are privileged. Dragging them up is unlikely to be productive to your case. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? With you lot lined up against me, I clearly don't have a case.Magellan32 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I read above and assumed that you still want to be unblocked to edit. Sorry if I was wrong about that. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
If you thought I wanted to be unblocked, why do you post negative comments that prevent me from being unblocked. That's called hypocrisy.Magellan32 (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Since you started this account, I've posted three new sections on this talk page. One was a simple question I anticipated you could quickly answer 'no' to and the other two were suggestions to change behaviours that I suspect are likely to be barriers to getting unblocked since they appear to be against policy. I also transcluded this talk page into your old one (a step hopefully towards you being allowed keep this account rather than the original one) and replied to questions. None of these edits were intended to be negative, I'm sorry if they have been perceived negatively. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Harassment
[edit]I would like to remind you that Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment says:
- Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. [...]
You may wish to reflect on whether your latest blog post, which talks about the actions of specific editors, may be considered harassment by those editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? There is no dispute resolution, no arbitration and since I don't have a case, there is clearly no good faith. I'm afraid I have also totally lost faith in wikipedia as a potentially accurate source of information - at least on pages related to the NZ justice system. When you make petty wiki rules more important than developing accurate well-sourced information then it is hard to take anything you say seriously. You may wish to reflect on that.
And if you can't see that you are harrassing me not the other way round, then I feel sorry for you. You appear to have used Bugbear001 as a pseudonym to edit the Legal Aid in New Zealand page which from my perspective makes you a total hypocrite. Magellan32 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Talk page access removed
[edit]As you are using this talk page to attack other editors and your chances of being unblocked are about nil given your off-Wikipedia harassment I have removed your ability to edit this page. Should you wish to ask to be unblocked in the future you may use Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. It's a shame that you are portraying the removal of the material you added as part of a blatant campaign to use Wikipedia to advance your personal views and attack various people as being some form of political censorship: this is an encyclopaedia, and not your blog. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)