User talk:Samurai Commuter

Welcome!

Hello, Samurai Commuter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Natalie (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Feed the Troll

Keep up the good work, Samurai! A troll will die if you starve it. Lou Sander (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one seems exceptionally resilient, Lou. Samurai Commuter (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

{{unblock|I don't even know what I did that was disruptive. I've never received any warnings. I notice that Lawrence Cohen blanked an entire section of evidence that I posted on ArbCom clarification, claiming that I posted links to personal information about another editor named Eschoir. In the preceding section, Eschoir admitted that he is the real person who was sued by an Internet forum for creating nearly 100 sockpuppets for purposes of disruption. He then provided a ridiculous narrative of that litigation, which had ending in a federal injunction against him.

I posted two links to online court documents proving that his narrative was ridiculous. I also posted a lot of diffs from right here at Wikipedia that took time to compile. It would have been sufficient to delete the links to the two court documents and give me a warning. Instead, the entire section of Arbcom evidence was deleted.

By admitting that he is the real person in question, and by prevaricating about the real reason for the federal injunction against that real person, Eschoir opened the door to this discussion. Please unblock me. Samurai Commuter (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Let's watch what he does for a little while. Request handled by: Blocking admin (Alasdair)

Your Warning to User:Eschoir

As a word of advice, it generally considered rude to template-warn someone with whom you are currently involved in an edit war (as you are with Eschior on Free Republic. On a more concrete point, your warning to Eschoir drew my attention to the page. After counting reverts in the last 24 hours, it appears that both you and Eschior have made 3 reverts today. Please stop. Further reverts will result in blocking, per the same warning that you issued on Eschior's page. Pastordavid (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. B (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments here. --B (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your email to me, the report was acted on, it is archived on the main case talk page per standard procedure. If it occurs again, file a new clarification, but be concise, focused, and to the point. State what you want claried or what remedy you want expanded, and why. Hope this helps. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re second email, report to WP:AE, be concise, factual, provide good diffs. Stay calm. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you as a disruptive single purpose account, this is per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 1 February 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).

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

Request reason:

Guy's block is unilateral and unsupported by consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Free Republic. Instead, consensus favored a topic ban until ArbCom could be resolved. If calling attention to the overwhelming COI problem of Eschoir (and resisting his efforts to turn the article into a poison pen letter) is disruption, then I'm guilty of disruption. Recent edits at Free Republic show that a new consensus was emerging. Samurai Commuter (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I concur with Guy that you are a single purpose account; such accounts are rarely productive contributors and I see no indication that you are the exception. To the contrary, your editing pattern points to you being a sock- or meatpuppet of some sort. Finally, attacking others is not a reason for unblock. Note to Guy: this block should be logged on the arbitration case. — Sandstein (talk) 22:32, 2 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I have been editing as a Wikignome and RC patroller from anonymous IP addresses for two years. (THAT explains my knowledge of WP. I am not banned.) I spotted a rude edit at Free Republic one day during RC patrol, reverted it, began editing it and that started my worst experience here. The only reason I opened this account was in the hope that it would reduce the level of resentment there. Fat chance of that. If I just go back to anonymous Wikignoming, it would technically be a block evasion. I have corrected thousands of grammar, spelling and punctuation errors and non-encyclopedic language in the last two years. I would cheerfully accept a ban from the article and its Talk page. Samurai Commuter (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, but I concur with the conclusions that Guy and Sandstein have come to. If you continue to believe this block is unjustified, you may contact the Arbitration Committee by email at arbcom-l(at)lists(dot)wikimedia(dot)org. This request has been declined. — nat.utoronto 19:44, 7 February 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.