User talk:The Oh-So Humble One

Portrayals of the Joker in film

I have redirected your article, as this is already covered in the main one on the Joker. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Diabolos (disambiguation)

The article Diabolos (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not disambiguating anything as only one meaning of the word is given; purpose could be better served by a note at the start of the Diabolos article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. role^player 00:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Zedong

Hey there! You're doing a great job so far, but make sure your edits conform to a neutral point-of-view. C1k3 (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Mao Zedong, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. William Avery (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at God, you may be blocked from editing. Peter Deer (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now adding a well-known fictional dictator to a category for fictional dictators is considered disruptive vandalism. In the words of Dawkins, "let's stop being so damned tolerant." The Oh-So Humble One (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has or may be used abusively.
This account has been blocked permanently to prevent abuse.

Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed.

--Deskana (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2010 (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).

The Oh-So Humble One (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To whom it may concern User:Deskana has blocked me and left no explanation, nor any means by which I can protest the block or contact administrators. This is not only an abuse of admin powers, it is a violation of Wikpedia policy. I regret that the only means by which I could get help with my block was to evade said block as an IP. I filed a case at ANI and seeking to silence me, Deskana blocked my IP. Fortunately, the case I filed at ANI came to the attention of administrative powers who demanded to know why Deskana, an apparently respectable user had committed such an act of wanton vandalism. He refused to answer, saying that a Checkuser had been carried out and furtively adding that I was not as new as I claimed to be, implying that I am a sockpuppet. I cannot emphasise enough that I am not guilty of sockpuppetry. I only arrived on Wikipedia a matter of months ago and in that short time I have done my best to familiarise myself with Wikipedia policy. If any IP address connected to mine has been found guilty of vandalism, I can only assume that there has been an IP overlap as is frequently common. Furthermore I can only ask with the utmost humility that I be unblocked if any reason for my being blocked cannot be submitted to myself and the general public. Any policy that says administrators can abuse their rights in this manner must be dissolved. It has been suggested by many that I be unblocked and Deskana admonished for his conduct. Thank you for your time.

Decline reason:

FisherQueen said it well. I have no reason to doubt the checkuser evidence, and no reason to believe that Deskana is acting maliciously. Syrthiss (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2010 (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.

Checkuser data is usually very reliable, and User:Deskana seems certain that the checkuser information shows that you are avoiding a block on a different account. Like many administrators, I am not a checkuser, and so I am not able to double-check her results. However, I know that I have never heard of a case in which a checkuser falsified information and blocked someone maliciously, whereas I have personally seen thousands of users who were definitely using a sockpuppet account to avoid a block lie about it. Not being a checkuser, I'm going to have to rely on the knowledge that I have, which is that it is more likely that a blocked user would lie than that a community-approved checkuser would. Of course, if some admin who also has checkuser ability wants to review this block, I have no objection. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is farcical. How dare you accuse me of lying when I am an innocent user being injustly persecuted. Checkusers only see if there are IP overlaps which happen all the time. The Checkuser may have found that I share an IP address with a vandal but that doesn't mean that I am them. Checkuser is obviously a very blunt instrument and a dangerous one. Who knows how many guiltless users have been blocked as a result of this infernal machine. I will not allows this witch hunt to continue. I demand that a Sockpuppet investigation be carried out, that I be informed of who I am accused of being and be able to dispute the charges being levied against me. I demand a jury of peers and a fair trial. I will not permit some crypt-fascist despot to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner over his fellow users. This will not stand. --The Oh-So Humble One (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access revoked. Contact arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if you wish to appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee. Syrthiss (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]