User talk:UrbanScion

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

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).

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

Request reason:

I tried being civil but you clowns chose to block me indefinitely with no alternative and force me to "sock it", but why the hell did you revert my edits? They were legitimate contributions and I was trying to add to the project. This is just needless spite. I won't let it lie. I really don't understand the pointlessly elitist attitude behind this approach when there were nothing wrong with the edits I made, if nothing just keep them. What is wrong with them even? Ie you blanked the Neall Ellis page even though I made a full addition of the man's service in Sierra Leone. Don't remove my talk page access either or I will start going further. You think I'm done here? No. Like it or not I'll contribute to the project, with or without your approval.

Decline reason:

Requests that contain personal attacks and threats to continue socking are not considered. If you intend to continue socking, there is nothing else to discuss. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not making any personal attacks, though? I'm a bit understandably frustrated that the time I've to contribute to the project has been roll backed in what appears to be an act of petty spite. So, yes, I think the individual responsible for doing so is a bit of a clown - I won't lie. I've a bit of animosity towards Yamla for how they've acted with me in spite of some attempts to be reasonablr. They haven't given me much reason to think otherwise with the attitude they've taken. As for my supposed intent to continue socking, what alternative is there? I gave people a chance to unblock me before, was honest and upfront and I felt like I got screwed for it. Felt like a real Morton's Fork scenario for me. Now, if I was unblocked and given the opportunity to contribute without the metaphoric twelve gauge pointed at the back of my brainbox, maybe we could have a civil conversation. I'm trying to be reasonable here and trust is a two way street. UrbanScion (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Socking to evade a block is pretty much a slam-dunk way to remain blocked forever. All I see here is a claim that rules you dislike shouldn't apply to you, which is a very good reason to leave the block in place. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:38, 29 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

So what option do I have? I'm trying to find some kind of resolution here and you're failing to address half of the points I've raised. I'm not even complaining about the rules only the unhelpful attitude I've had.

Decline reason:

"The unhelpful attitude you've had"? Do you mean this unhelpful attitude? This unhelpful attitude? Or maybe this unhelpful attitude? I see multiple answers to unblock requests on your original account's user talk page that explain what you should do, including the one by Yamla. Are you incapable of understanding and following them or unwilling to do so? It makes no difference in the end. Since now you're merely wasting our time, I'll revoke talk page access here, too. WP:UTRS will be the way to go, as 331dot already explained. Huon (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2019 (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.

What alternative is there? The alternative of you showing that you can respect and follow Wikipedia guidelines and processes by not socking. Since you are blocked in part for socking, you need to request unblock from your original account- since your talk page access was removed, you need to use WP:UTRS. You also seem to be saying that it's other people's fault that you were blocked, when you were blocked for what you did, not because of others. When you sock and evade your block, you are showing that you have no respect for the policies and processes here. Why would we want someone to edit who will not do what the vast majority of people do here and follow policy? You need to show that before you contribute, not after. Again, if you intend to continue socking no matter what happens here, then there is nothing else to talk about. Someone else will review(and likely reject) your request.331dot (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to continue socking if there's an actual viable means of getting unblocked, it was an action taken as a last resort. I did want a fresh start though, I know that isn't necessarily a policy you approve of but I had wanted a clean slate after years had passed. Never meant for it to escalate to this stage. I don't blame other people for my original block, but I do blame Yamla for what I feel has been a combative attitude when I tried to do the right thing and be honest with my appeal onZombiedude101 only to get a slap to the face. Blocking my talk page access and clamping me down wherever I tried to speak and spouting walls of text about rules and policy without care or consideration for context didn't endear me. I lost faith in the process and went down my own way because of it because that sometimes feels like the only means of getting anywhere. I'd also like the contributions I made to be reinstated because I spent actual time and effort on them. UrbanScion (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]