User talk:Dino Vercotti

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).

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

Request reason:

What is the reason for my INDEFINITE block? I've made just 2 edits (well, three, including this one, so far). Thanks!

Decline reason:

The latest of dozens of socks created specifically to force a link onto Talk:Mozilla Firefox. Editor's first edit was adding a blank userpage, and the second was to revert there.

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.

- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"force a link onto talk" -- are you kidding me? I have only re-added removed thread with relevant discussion. Yes, it is discussion about external link, but what's wrong with that? Please, calm down, and explain it to me. Thanks. Dino Vercotti 00:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't replace the {{unblock}} template. I have this on my watchlist.

The discussion wasn't relevant, had been discussed to death and had essentially no support in policy or users to replace that link, and it's pretty clearly obvious this account was made for the specific purpose of replacing that threat. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it's pretty clearly obvious this account was made for the specific purpose of replacing that threat." -- I'm sorry, but this is clearly bullshit. I've created this account on 25 January 2007 (check log), and thread in question was created much much later.

So, I see that you haven't checked all the surrounding details. I don't trust you that this issue "has been discussed to death" and that it hasn't support in policy. I believe this link can be added in full accordance with external links policy.

Because I don't trust your judgment (it was wrong, as I've just showed), I want some other uninvolved admin to review my indefinite block.

This account just happens to be old enough to bypass semiprotection, which has long been applied to Mozilla Firefox to prevent the reinsertion of that very link. Not biting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are completely wrong again -- Mozilla Firefox (article) IS NOT protected at this time (check history -- IPs are editing it all the time), only talk page is. As we can see, you are not informed enough about this issue, so please, let me ask another admin for review. Thanks.

It was only recently unprotected. Oddly enough, this account was made shortly after the page was protected so an "Opera is better" troll would stop spamming the page, and this account's first substantive edit is to replace a thread about restoring (you guessed it) a link to an Opera-is-better testimonial page!

I'm willing to hang about and continue with this, if you're game, but if you keep placing {{unblock}} I will protect this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link in question is more about "Firefox is not ideal", not Opera-is-better (personally I don't use Opera, because I don't use closed source software in general).

Anyway, I am bored with "discussion" with you. It seems you are not fully aware of all related issues. Please, stop removing {{unblock}} template placed by me. Dino Vercotti 23:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of all related issues, and reviewed both the discussion and the site in question. We're done here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]