User talk:Mass driver

Blocked

It would appear from your contributions that you are not new to Wikipedia, and since the focus of your energies is to advance a contentious fringe view around which there are numerous banned or restricted editors that leads to the inevitable suspicion that you are one of these. Wikipedia is not for advocacy, especially of fringe views. If your original account is not blocked or restricted please feel free to contact any trusted administrator and identify yourself, but Wikipedia needs truther sockpuppets like a hole in the head. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 14 September 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).

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

Request reason:

I was never expelled or evicted from Wikipedia in any other way but by my sole will. Not to say that Wikipedia needs your observations and your terminology and your hegemony as much as it needs a monkey on its back. You are free to offer any evidence and prove libelous and defamatory comment you've made above. In meanwhile, I demand to be unblocked. Immediately. Mass driver (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Thank you for your demand to be unblocked, but Wikipedia already has enough users promoting this particular fringe theory, and doesn't require any more at the present time. We do still have openings for users who are editing in neutral ways that are fully sourced from the best available resources, but you haven't demonstrated the necessary skills for that position. I recommend great caution with words like 'libelous' and 'defamatory', as users who make legal threats are not permitted to edit.— FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:46, 17 September 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).

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

Request reason:

And thank you for your decline, but I'll have to demand another review, one made by impartial administrator who will actually take some time to assess my contributions. If we are not allowed to reference reliable, reputable and well established, let's say best available sources then we are indeed at the fringe. I will not accept unfounded accusations and/or libel. Thanks. Mass driver (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reasons for your block; see WP:GAB. On the merits, I agree with Guy. — Sandstein 21:18, 17 September 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.

(edit conflict) First off, in case this wasn't clear from the last review, we don't generally respond to "demands". We are volunteers, and don't appreciate being shouted at. Secondly, this unblock "demand" doesn't address any of the reasons why you were blocked, which was for disruptive sockpuppetry. Thirdly, again, continuing to make implied legal threats will result in the immediate protection of this page according to our policy. This is your last warning in that regard. Fourthly, I did take a look at your contributions and found them to be disruptive trolling and highly indicative that you've been here and been blocked before. Finally, I'd highly recommend taking a look at this guide for how to format your next unblock request. If you follow the guide, we may be more inclined to look into matters more thoroughly. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I've hurt anyone's feelings, but I'm a bit tired of this sort of conduct, last time I've contributed, you folks gave me same malicious welcome, you've demanded enormous amount of energy and time for the simplest, most obvious and most reasonable edit. Some of you even felt a bit sorry after that bursting encounter. It was all the same 'arguments', yet the proposed change was established (because it was logical, recognizable, well referenced and generally acceptable) and the article was improved with regards to our basic policies and guidelines. However, editors involved were so zealous that they've chocked the will to contribute out of me. Well, I'll made another request in a minute, editors who are watching at the moment my use that minute to think about what sort of editors Wiki wants/needs. Either way, thanks for your reply. Mass driver (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's good that you're so familiar with our rules and our practices, our policies and guidelines. It takes new users a long time to learn those things; it's easy to tell the difference between a new user and someone who isn't a new user. We'd really like to know what other username(s) you've used, and why you decided you needed this new one. I don't think you're going to find anyone who's comfortable unblocking the new name of an experienced user without knowing who that user is, and why she stopped using the old username. The fact that subjects related to September 11 are much under attack from people pushing a point of view means that we don't have as much time to spend educating every individual editor as we'd like, and tend to block much more quickly than we would for people who are pushing a point of view regarding, say, cheese, or puppies, where things are a little less fraught with high emotion. Strategies that might be effective when requesting an unblock would include identifying your previous account or accounts, and/or making a commitment to avoid September 11-related topics in future editing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed to my previous account above, I've contributed as Tachyonbursts then, and it was not much of an experience. I've been editing Wiki for a long time and I created that and this account because I rarely choose to engage into 9/11 issues and I like to keep those endeavors separated from my other contributions. Among additional things, and at the end, one might say that such course was set by the current state of privacy on Internet. That said, the reason I've created a new account was the failure to get a response from the administrator who blocked me when I've asked for it, as well as the fact that talkpage of previous account was ravaged so badly that I had no will to continue with such background which was creatively designed with libelous and defamatory posts of editors who are 'owning' 9/11 article. Must say, the fact that Mass driver was not already reserved as account name helped too.

Finally, I will never, ever accept topic ban, especially so in light of my previous, well intended, and accepted contributions. I may choose to ban myself from the topic, but underneath all these ever burning issues we're actually dealing with some very basic freedoms which I for one hold very dearly. Well, one may only hope it is understandable. Any thoughts before I place my next request? Mass driver (talk) 22:29, 17 September 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).

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

Request reason:

I've been blocked while trying to bring neutral point of view to deeply disputed article, I've referenced few points with well established, reputable, verifiable and mainstreamed sources, yet the discussion was closed swiftly and I've been 'shot' by friendly fire with an extremely annoying explanation. I don't find Wikipedia to be crucial in resolving 9/11 atrocity and therefore I don't feel passionately about it. As a matter of fact I may choose to lie dormant for months before visiting that particular page again, and that is a rock solid fact. However, I do care about our principles, guidelines and ideals, which in turn, makes this sort of situation extremely disappointing if not irritating. We cannot just shoot at anyone who comes into scope, we cannot turn a blind eye on unfolding history and we cannot have proclamations and/or pamphlets instead of encyclopedic articles. Or can we? I'm not in the mood to keep this formal, and I don't have time for writing essays, this is my final request, do as you will. P.S. Forgot to mention, but editors involved in our previous encounters are well aware that I abide to the rules and take much care and effort when it come to reaching and building consensus. Mass driver (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Mass driver (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and flatly refusing to step away from the conflict that has gotten you blocked in the first place shows little willingness to collaborate at writing an encyclopedia rather that simply expounding on a "cause" (no matter how just you feel it is). Editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted at large, but only for the purposes of writing the encyclopedia. There is no right to "correct" any specific article against consensus. — Coren ^(talk) 23:03, 17 September 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.

.

As stated above, I actually don't feel so passionate about it… I'd say my efforts are strictly preemptive, in a way that is. Guess we'll document it properly when time comes… Eh, what was that say about those who make peaceful revolution impossible? Such waste, well, those who invested in murder will pay. Best wishes to everyone. Mass driver (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tachyonbursts was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. That account's first edit was a report at WP:ANI, a good sign that isn't the original account, either. If your editing pattern is causing you to be blocked, you need to figure out a plan for a different way of editing, not keep creating new accounts. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, user tachyonburst was blocked after his own silly request. Blocking administrator made that clear [1], although it seems he/she misstated it while justifying his/her action. After revision, it appears that ‘excessive use of force’ and disregard to AGF has became an ordinary conduct when we deal with the editors involved in 9/11 articles. Surly not something Wiki can be proud about.