User talk:VivianDarkbloom

Welcome, from Journalist

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello VivianDarkbloom. My name is Orane (but I go by the name 'Journalist' on Wikipedia) and I am one of Wikipedia's Administrators. I just stopped by to say Hi and to formally welcome you to Wikipedia. Thank you for your awesome contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I know that being here for the first few days may be a bit confusing, but you'll get used to it pretty soon.

Here are a few good links for newcomers. I know that they can be boring, but I recommend that you take a look at them:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You can come to my talk page if you have any questions. If Im online, I will definitely respond. If I'm offline, you can go to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Again, welcome! Come say Hi!

Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Kunz

In the interest of preserving the record of the debate, I have applied the nowiki tag to your improper close of discussion on the deletion. I have also reviewed the added text to the article and question whether any additional measure of notability is made for her. If you would like to discuss this issue, either on the AfD page or the article's talk page, I welcome it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened this debate, as there is a clear community consensus to delete, so a close as keep is improper. I have moved your comments to the bottom of the AfD so as to maintain the usual format, without censoring your opinions. Kevin 01:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Consensus in the AfD is to delete the article. As to your comment to me: "It is one thing to disagree about how to handle an unusual situation. It is quite another to repeatedly remove comments and opinions with which you disagree from an AfD discussion." I have not removed any comments you have made; what I have removed is the apparent close of an AfD when discussion is ongoing—and when consensus is the opposite of how you have false-closed the debate. In light of you comments on my page, and in light of your hijacking of the community-built process for AfD: Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You vandalized the article. You made false statements about what various external pages about the author said. You initially deleted my comments from the afd. We'll continue this in an appropriate place. And nothign I did was vandalism, whether I was right or wrong. You deleted relevant, referenced text about the author's books from the article without any reason except to deceive voters in the afd. That was vandalism. VivianDarkbloom 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies

Hey -- although you may be right about what's going on there, it's not a reason for speedy deletion. If the article in question had already been deleted, though, perhaps CSD G4 would apply. But for what it's worth, I don't think it would in this case as it's not a straight repost. Let me suggest just using AfD? Mango juice^talk 20:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry

Vivian, I'm sorry I attacked you at the ANI. Clearly, the issue was much more than I knew of. You are right to oppose me in my RfA, I had no idea of the magnitude of the problem, I was completely off-base to respond. Please accept my apology. If there is any way I can help, please tell me. My email's working if you would like to respond privately.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA and your vote

Hello again Vivian,
Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I'm sorry we had a bad run-in....thank you for pointing it out, though, I will no longer be so quick to reach conclusions. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page.

Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Somers

You had opined keeping. If the claim on which you based that opinion were cited/sourced, I'd agree. Please let me know if you source the claim before the AfD closes, and I'll change my opinion. GRBerry 21:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Buckley Article

I was by no means suggesting you did anything in bad faith. I was merely making the point that a subject's notability exists independantly of any editors actions towards an article. My point was that even if it had been deprodded in bad faith (if is a qualifing word; it expresses possibility, not certainty. It was a hypothetical point, not an accusatory one) it would have no bearing on the inherent notability of the subject in question. It would also appear that if a side is to be taken, (not again, to say that I am taking sides in any way) certain people are acting civily and others are resorting to name calling. I have not called any names. You have not called any names. You do the math. --Jayron32 02:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'd say. I wouldn't have jumped the gun if your comment began 'Vivian Darkbloom may or may not be', but I really shouldn't have called it an accusation. VivianDarkbloom 20:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, particularly the "standing up against an apparatchik" reference, which I found very encouraging. Please rest assured that I am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 18:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PORNBIO

Side comment - if you look at the discussions linked from Wikipedia: Notability (pornographic actors)/Referenced page (it really is useful) you will notice the guideline is used about half the time by people voting Delete, and half the time by people voting Keep. However, when the article is Kept, it is sometimes in accordance with the guideline, and sometimes not, while when the article is Deleted, it is always in accordance with the guideline. In other words, the guideline deletes more articles. If you really don't like porn star articles in the Wikipedia, as your many AfD comments imply, you should be in favor of the guideline, not against it. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from editors who don't know what Personal Attacks are

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 22:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second these comments. Your concerns about Ophelia Benson could have been met quickly and simply by editing the page to establish notability rather than taking the time to write page or so of vitriol on the talk page. That is the best way to stop an AfD in its tracks. I don't think anyone is happy with all Wikipedia contains: I too am rather bemused by some of the fancruft that crops up on here. But it is unreasonable to behave as you did when there was a much simpler, faster and more pleasant solution: fix the article and let people change their votes. –Joke 00:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear irresponsible joker, the information was already on the page and the deleters lied abouit it. As you would have noticed if you checked. Talk about unreasonable. VivianDarkbloom 19:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the second time I've seen your name at WP:PAIN, which is surprising since I've been an administrator for only two weeks. The first time you posted a request upon which I declined to act because I considered the matter a content dispute with incivility on both sides. I cautioned you in my response at the board but didn't place a warning on your user talk page - a close call that works in your favor now. Your actions regarding AFD prompted several complains, and unnecessarily so because improvements to the article have changed some opinions. If you had any prior history of blocks or level 3 warnings I'd be writing a block notice instead of this. You cared enough about an article today to go out of your way defending it. Please channel your energies into directions that don't lead me to question your conduct. Durova 03:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make posts that lead me to question your intellectual or moral capacity. VivianDarkbloom 19:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming rather late to this debate, but I just want to give you an "Attaboy!", Vivian. I read the stuff about Ophelia Benson, and also about Chessie Moore, and I don't think there's a "personal attack" within a thousand miles of what you said. It's some of the very best – and funniest – writing I've seen in the short time I've been working on Wikipedia. Please do some more of it!! Feel free to put it on my talk page if you don't want to offend anyone – I won't be offended, because I love your sense of humor. What a concept! Discussing the epistemic consequences of political correctness isn't "notable", but having sex with dogs is "notable". That's a riot. ROFLMAO.

Have a great day! ;^> DavidCBryant 13:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

Nice username. Charles Kinbote 16:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

48 hour block

For WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.[1][2][3][4] Durova^Charge! 00:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc S. Ellenbogen

(Copying, with slight alterations, my reply to your comment there) Before you uncivilly and sarcastically chide someone about his comments on an AfD, you might want to actually read the references and be sure of your facts. The reference in the article for his visiting fellowship very curiously doesn't include his name, therefore leads me to suspect that the claim is bogus. So, if he really wasn't a visiting fellow, and he hasn't won any of the adult movie awards that you refer to, why is it we should keep this article? AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Before you post a boneheaded, uncivil comment like this one, you might just assume good faith or do a little checking for yourself. He's listed in other places, like this Oxford site,[5] as having an affiliation with the university. And UNESCO verifies the credential [6]. Perhaps the reason that the reference you "suspect" doesn't list him is because "visitng fellow" is a temporary appointment, that the reference was probably valid when added, but that his fellowship has now ended. The article does say "former," and the reference cited is current. Now go do the right thing, change your comment, and apologize for your uncivil, poorly informed, and condescending if not insulting inaccurate remarks. VivianDarkbloom 22:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VivivanDarkbloom,

In response to this comment:

A shameful personal attack. Ryoung122, if you actually think there's something shameful about contesting Wikipedia's hateful demeaning of women by promoting sex workers as notable while too often, eviscerating the entries for persons of genuien achievement, of every gender, I'll amuse myself my contemplating your potential encounter with a rabid wolverine. VivianDarkbloom 19:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not all porn workers are female and not all are hetero, either. Your claim that Wikipedia was 'hatefully demeaning women' is ridiculous.

Also, your extremely negative tone probably didn't help. This was a 'close call' and I might have voted differently if you hadn't taken a scorched-Earth approach.Ryoung122 04:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you didn't base your "vote" on the actual merits of the dispute, but wanted to teach me a lesson because I hold a political position that offends you. You must be very proud. Now read this wonderful discussion [7], note that the sources are far less reliable than those for Ellenbogen, that the advertising content is much higher, and tell me again that Wikipedia's varying treatment of women's notability isn't goddam reprehensible. If you can do it, that is, without your nose growing longer. VivianDarkbloom 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A wonderful display of irony in action

Given your recent ludicrously overheated comments, such as this, this, this, and this, you obviously need to take a chill pill. And your specific personal attacks are too ridiculous on their face to bother commenting on, though, again, it seems to be a fascinating example of psychological projection in action. Truthfully, perhaps you could continue your crusade after a break: people might actually give you the benefit of the doubt, as in here. Keep this up, and I suspect your break will become a mandatory one. --Calton | Talk 02:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A word to the wise: only a few edits after this display of malice and dishonesty, Calton was blocked for "Persistent incivility and taunting of other users" and has not returned. Good riddance. VivianDarkbloom 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still here.

So, no reply from ArbCom yet? --Calton | Talk 16:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Speedies

Just to let you know, I would recommend you check out the talk pages to articles you are about to speedy before tagging them as such. Two articles you tagged, Cherie (porn star) and Stacey Owen, were already vetted through the articles for deletion process. As such they are ineligible to be "speedied", but may be renominated for AFD. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they weren't, at least no in substance. One was afd'd, then the nom was almost immediately withdrawn. The other was AFD'd under dubious/subjective notability (non)standards, and doesn't pass the later third-party verifiability requirements. Amazing how much effort goes into keeping the socially inept crew's favorite masturbatory objects wikilisted, isn't it? VivianDarkbloom 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your views on the subject (or mine for that matter), policy is policy. Since the subjects were gone through AFD, they needed to go that route again. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, policy is as policy does, and quite a few other articles have been speedied on the terms I describe. Since you don't have any substantive defense, you'll be endorsing my AFD nominations, right? VivianDarkbloom 21:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

`

Please don't revert the refusal of speedy deletion on Terri Summers. If you think the article is inappropriate, then nominate it under Articles for deletion instead. Sam Blacketer 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert the refusal of the speedy. The speedy was first rejected because I didn't tag it quite right. So I fixed that. What else should I have done? If there's a rule against correcting a defective request, I'd love to see it cited. You really ought to apologize for your careless remark and review the request on its merits. VivianDarkbloom 22:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

I'm concerned that your editing is becoming disruptive. You will note above concerns about inappropriate nominations for speedy deletion; your edits on characters from That's So Raven are also problematic. Wikipedians sometimes refer to the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle: this means that after you have been bold in updating a page, and another user has reverted the change, you should go to discuss with the other user to try to compromise.

Excessive reverting, when it becomes disruptive, is something you can be blocked from editing for; and there is a strict limit of three reverts in any 24-hour period under the three revert rule. Can you please bear this in mind?

By the way how is Clare Quilty? Sam Blacketer 22:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. The "strict limit" is three reverts per page, not three reverts, and I didn't see you send a message like this to any of the guys who are edit-warring the pages in order to delete. What's going on with articles like this is just crap. 1500 editors (probably closer to 15000) blieve the subjects are notable enough to deserve articles. 15 guys who view Wikipedia as a wargame, not an encyclopedia, stake out turf on what is to most users an obscure policy page and declare their own views to be consensus, and insist that only the views of real editors -- the guys who contribute next to nothing in terms of content, but expend a lot of heat on "policy" -- count, trash thousands of articles written by thousands of users. And they have a peculiar interest in targeting subjects with audiences of hundreds of thousands of adolescent females, while leaving articles on subjects with much smaller audiences of adolescent males (eg, Marvel Comics characters) or sexually retarded post-adolescent males (eg, all the porncruft) alone.

Since you ask about Clare, I'd say his unfortunate end mirrors the way reasonable people on Wikipedia are treated too often (and that you expect the rest of to behave with regard to the creepy little popinjays strutting around Wikipedia with no perceptible interests except to suppress the contributions of others. VivianDarkbloom 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right on my talk page. I do apologise for reverting your readdition of the speedy on Terri Summers, and you broke no rule in readding it.

However I am still concerned that you are being a little too confrontational here. Once it becomes clear that there is a substantial measure of disagreement it is as well to find somewhere to discuss the issue rather than to assert your position by reverting. The three revert rule is an 'electric fence' rather than an entitlement, so sticking by its letter is no guarantee that you are editing acceptably.

As it happens I tend to agree with you on the balance of power as between policy-arguers and content-writers. You also make a cogent point which could be described as a systemic bias. The problem is that the point will tend to be lost if you get a reputation as a disruptive editor with a strong view; the thing to do is to get a reputation as a constructive editor who proves their point in a way that enhances the encyclopaedia. Since Wikipedia does not work by voting but by consensus, you have more chance here than most other open online communities.

I'd hesitate to describe Clare Quilty as reasonable (although perhaps he was 'normal'). Sam Blacketer 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedys for books

It is not possible to speedy delete books for lack of notability, only those classes of things specified in WP:CSD A7. Please re- read the rules there. You must use prod or afd-- It's been found by experience that if they are done by speedy, too many mistakes are made. DGG (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Honestly, can you at least explain why you're going against the consensus of at least two discussions for no reason? I know you'll just remove this for some strange reason, but come on... TTN 22:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm going to leave this in because it shows you ignored my comments above. Now explain why you and brothers-in-rant believe that 15 or 20 guys opinions on an obscure page outweigh the clear opinions of the thousands of editors who wrote the articles, and why you're so interested in beating up on subjects popular among adoescent girls. VivianDarkbloom 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree with the redirection of articles, even if it is firmly based in policy, but do not label such edits as vandalism please, like you did on IWanna Stay With Spencer. The article you reverted to is a very clear violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, which is policy. Removing such contents is not vandalism, nd replacing it with a correct, informative redirect is not vandalism either. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is what should have happened and what mostly happens, but the labellingof such edits as vandalism has no place in this. Fram 10:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The policy you cite does not provide a basis for purging the entire article from Wikipedia, but for pruning the plot summary. Since there's no basis in policy for the action, and since the users involved have made no effort to improve the articles involved, it's clear that the intention of the very small number of editors bent on wiping out the good faith work of thousand of other editors has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, and is clearly a more "sophisticated" form of vandalism. VivianDarkbloom 21:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. If you remove the plot summary from the article[8], all you are left with is one line of info which is a duplicate of what is already in the article it was redirected to. The article was nothing but a plot summary, which violates policy. How does removing a policy violation constitute vandalism? Fram 07:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cowardly bullyboy chimes in

Would you care to show me a single edit that I have made that you would classify as "disruptive"?Kww (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sweetheart. You just provide aid and comfort to the disruptive editors. That's why I described you as an accomplice. Although perhaps making unfounded allegations is disruptive, though. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI? What COI do you think I have?Kww (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact that you edit articles that are clearly related to your business, sanitizing them of unpleasant references. Removing any reference to Natalie Holloway from the article regarding the site of her disappearance, for example? OK, Mr Pink Beach properties? You edit Wikipedia to remove unpleasant references to the neighborhood your business is located. What'll you do now? Your response to criticism is to vigorously attack the editor who criticizes you, regardless of factual accuracy, civility, etc. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone takes that accusation seriously, I took the issue over to the COI noticeboard. Result was "no problem". As for "cowardly bullyboy", I don't think there's a "cowardly bullyboy accusation" noticeboard to request an opinion at.Kww (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template use

I saw that you used {{nothanks-sd}} on User talk:LaMenta3. However, you completely FUBARed it. First of all, the template already has a section header, so adding another one in your comment (the subject/headline field) is redundant. Furthermore, it has a mandatory parameter, "pg", and the template states that you are supposed to subst it. So, you message should have included a blank headline (assuming you clicked the "+" button), and the message "{{subst:nothanks-sd|pg=Anastasia Christ}} extra text here ~~~~". Thanks. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the article which you used this template to notify me about, I don't see why you found it necessary to template me and chastise me about an article that I may have made some superficial edits to more than half a year ago. I honestly don't even really remember this article or the edits I made; it was that long ago. Check the dates and diffs in the history before unnecessarily hassling editors over good faith edits, because odds are, if it was a minor edit and it was more than a month or two ago, they won't care about the article and will only be annoyed by your actions. If you really feel that notifying the last editor of the article is necessary, try a more diplomatic approach than templates and the accusatory tone that you use. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you added the material that appeared to be the major copyvio. The policy page instructions suggested templating you, so I followed policy. Since you don't care about the article, it's no great loss now. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of City of Bones

An article that you have been involved in editing, City of Bones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Bones. Thank you. Jack Merridew 12:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

TigerShark (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I thought reverting and reporting vandalism was an exception to the 3RR rule. But I guess it's not when the vandals have friends like this. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

[9] and [10] are violations of the policy linked above. Either substantiate them or remove them. Black Kite 14:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, VivianDarkbloom. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite 15:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block for abuse of alternate account

Following a discussion at WP:ANI#VivianDarkbloom I, as a previously uninvolved admin, have enacted an indefinite block on this account for abuse of WP:SOCK. You may use the {{unblock|''your reasons here''}} option to appeal this block here, or if you wish you may make a response on this page to the comments at ANI and I will copy them there. I shall watch this page for your response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 4 March 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).

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

Request reason:

I've heard of sentence first, verdict later, but never sentence first, evidence later. There's no evidence that I violated any part of WP:SOCK, mostly because I haven't. KWW has been lobbying on this point without evidence for months. The only fair complaint is a) that, unlike other people in this dispute, I acknowledged two years ago that I've edited under another name; and b) that I won't say what it was, given the level of off-wikipedia harassment that was directed at my children by unsavory Wikipedian editors. (and I got approval in advance from two well-regard then administrators, both of whom have since left the project in apparent disgust with the decay of standards here and the perversion of the project into a creepy wargame that regularly rewards dishonesty and senseless aggression.)People who resent strong, on-target criticism of their behavior make a habit of ranting without evidence, and the AN/I discussion you responded to is just another example of that. Users like KWW are, like most bullyboys, cowardly at heart, and when forced to face off in fairly refereed situations they turn tail and run to authority figures with sob stories of abuse. (and it's surely not an accident that the discussion was timed to run so that I couldn't respond, since I have a job and don't get paid for online banter) This is just more fallout from the whole Episodes and Characters arbcom case, and it's not an accident that it was sparked by an outcome that the principals making complaints about me are, to their unhappiness, on the losing end. And the response if to harass the other side rather than comply with the arbcom ruling. As for my supposedly relentless incivility, it's hardly as though I called someone a "dipshit," as one of the brothers-in-arms of these complainants called me without the slightest consequence [2], or supported on wikipedia a vicious campaign of harassment against a teenage female author brought over from other message boards, as KWW and others did. It's also worth noting that, in several of the discussions that supposedly evidence my incivility, I'm being called out for accurately pointing out that an SPA account has posted a dishonest deletion proposal (in all cases demeaning the female subject of an article.) Apparently there's something wrong with that, although it's OK to hurl phony sockpuppetry charges in my direction.

Decline reason:

This unblock request has not been examined on the merits because it contains personal attacks aimed at another user. — Sandstein (talk) 06:21, 5 March 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.

FWIW, I believe the "SPA" she (?) refers to would likely be me and the deletion proposal would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Bones. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:SOCK it is not permitted to have one account to "carry the fight to" alleged persecutors/pov/SPA's, while being able to edit without sanction from another. Please note that you may have been sanctioned (although with a lesser tariff) were this the only account for the civility violations, but the circumstances dictated that this alternate account be indef blocked. If you were to agree to abandon the main account (you need not publicise which one it is, it can be done by email including confirmation by checkuser) then you may be able to have this account unblocked - after any sanction for the incivility. In any case, I suggest the request for unblock be made on grounds other than the perceived actions and intents of others. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 5 March 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).

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

Request reason:

Note: I'm going to restore an edited version of the previous unblock summary, removing the personal attacks. I have no opinion on a block based on civility, but as Vivian has now directly challenged the sockpuppet accusation, and with the lack evidence, a block based on that reasoning should be lifted. -- Ned Scott 02:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of sentence first, verdict later, but never sentence first, evidence later. There's no evidence that I violated any part of WP:SOCK, mostly because I haven't. The only fair complaint is a) that, unlike other people in this dispute, I acknowledged two years ago that I've edited under another name; and b) that I won't say what it was, given the level of off-wikipedia harassment that was directed at my children by unsavory Wikipedian editors. (and I got approval in advance from two well-regard then administrators, both of whom have since left the project in apparent disgust with the decay of standards here and the perversion of the project into a creepy wargame that regularly rewards dishonesty and senseless aggression.)

Decline reason:

This is someone else's alternate account, as established by[11]. Using it for personal attacks violates the part of WP:SOCK that prohibits 'good hand, bad hand' accounts. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:50, 7 March 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.

{{unblock|On behalf of this user once again I am requesting an unblock, due to the complete and total lack of evidence to support the accusation of this account being a sock puppet. MaxSem apparently took no time to review this, and the stated diff does not establish the sock puppet claim. VivianDarkbloom has stated that this is a second account started because the first was linked to "off-wikipedia harassment that was directed at my children by unsavory Wikipedian editors". That is obviously not a violation of any policy that we have, whatsoever. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I'm not sure I see the evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. If there is evidence, an SSP report or a RFCU should be open to establish that evidence. I don't even see anything that passes the duck test per WP:DUCK. If I am wrong, this account can always be reblocked if concrete evidence can be provided.

Request handled by: Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]