User talk:Yadontmind

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

206.174.72.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Blastingoff". The reason given for Blastingoff's block is: "User has admitted to being indef blocked User:Yadontmind; if you would like to challenge

Blocking administrator: Philosopher (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You were blocked directly, please use {{unblock}} with a good reason why we should unblock you. This page will help. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I am challenging.

as far as reasons, well let's begin with I am seeking assistance and I get blocked? there is not even a rationale for that. quite obviously this is a farce. Yadontmind (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason you seem to be operating three accounts? Both of the following appear to be you:

Completelyoverit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Blastingoff (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

– Luna Santin (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theres more than three, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Upgrade1, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Crashingthewaves, User:Comingattractions--Jac16888 ^Talk 08:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm Jac, you mean there are, there is is grammatically incorrect. besides, just go away Jac, you aren't really interested in learning or helping. Luna, I am completely over it as far as wikipedia hassles. I guess you can't tell that thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people are sick of the drama and stupidity that is prevalent on the site. I welcome a chance to take all of these people off the site; they are incompetent and basically wicked in some fashion.

Od, "we"? I am not even trying to edit Wikipedia at the present time, just going to try to deal with this first. I have been editing articles on Wikipedia longer than any four or five of you wacko admins put together. I never had any trouble until recently, explain that? oh wait, you can't. also explain to me why there is agreement that Wikipedia is getting to be a swamp. no one wants to be near you people any more.

I think I will contest this as much as possible. I am going to get some of you worthless editors (even admins) banned, hopefully permanently. I am OVER how miserably you think and how dreadfully you treat people.

I could go blue trying to explain that having more than one id is not proof that a user is doing something incorrect, unethical or anything else. did you crazies ever think that you people drive someone to this? that it is a defense to lunacy? oh, you don't know about doppelgangers either. also there are other legitimate purposes for having more than one id. lastly on this topic, GET OVER IT. socks are not the worst problem on here. the worst problem is incompetence and almost all of you admins are woeful and idiotic. Yadontmind (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

due to paragraphs and reasons stated (how about reading them?)

Decline reason:

An obviously ungrantable request. You've been identified as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely-blocked user, with many accounts. You pretty much confirm as much in your request. If you make another request to unblock without addressing your sockpuppetry, expect this page to be locked down. If you continue to create more accounts to evade your block, expect your IP range to be blocked to prevent this. Mango juice^talk 13:15, 27 August 2009 (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.

I would say due to severe incompetence. the fact that people on Wikipedia and wherever else are ridiculously hard to contact and reason with. also I am going to be relentless in trying to change the miserable status of the site. most of you guys think that you can run a fiefdom, sorry, you can't. you think that you can ABUSE principles and look like you have a conscience. sorry, no one buys it. try something else. how about most of you nuts go start your own webpage someplace where we won't have to put up with you.

anyone figure out that coming out of high school doesn't qualify you to be a journalist? most of you can't edit to save your life. I daresay you are doing an abysmal job.

this is not the first webpage that has been corrupted nearly completely. almost any site can be. congratulations, none of you are decent enough to address the issues raised. additionally we could debate this a little without the blocking matter too, but no, you are block-happy. Yadontmind (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you have a legitimate complaint about corrupt administrators, it would behoove you to provide some evidence here. As far as I can see, you rant at length about how you don't want to edit Wikipedia, and yet you've create numerous accounts to evade blocks and continue editing; you complain that users and admins are difficult to get in contact with, when all articles and users come fully equipped with public talk pages; you offer numerous claims of corruption, but offer no evidence to support those claims; I asked quite simply why you were using multiple accounts, and you immediately replied on the defensive. For better or worse, a large number of veteran Wikipedians are jaded after years of dealing with untenable behavior; if you want to be heard at this point, it is very much in your interest to appear reasonable, aware and respectful of site policies, and open to a collaborative atmosphere. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]