User talk:FuManChoo

The user of this account also once had User:Deuterium as an account.

Welcome

Hello, FuManChoo, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. Check out the Simplified Ruleset. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — if you have any questions, or just want to say hello, feel free to contact me on my Talk Page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

Always use wikiquette
Write from a neutral point of view
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
Always use edit summaries when editing pages.
You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language
Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing!

May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)

Click here to reply to this message.

This message was sent at 05:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked again

User:Deuterium, we've been through this before: see User talk:ANecessaryWeevil. As explained before, WP:SOCK says you cannot create sockpuppet accounts to "Avoid scrutiny from other editors". Specifically:

Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.

Since you have used this account to edit in the exact same areas, topics, and articles as your previous account, and to oppose editors you have previously opposed, I can see no legitimate reason for having this account. If you wish to switch from your old account to this new account, or wish to publicly declare that you are now using two accounts, so that accommodations for this can be made, please let me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am using one account. This one. As such it is not a sockpuppet.

I lost the password for Deuterium and I wanted a change of name anyway. Assuming that I'm using this account to "avoid the scrutiny of my fellow editors" is a violation of AGF. I have never said that I'm not Deuterium.

Unblock this account immediately. FuManChoo 20:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COME ON. UNBLOCK THIS ACCOUNT. I HAVE ADMITTED I AM DEUTERIUM. I DO NOT HAVE THE PASSWORD TO THAT ACCOUNT SO I COULDNT USE IT IF I WANTED TO. STOP ABUSING YOUR PRIVILEGES, JAYJG. FuManChoo 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting this sockpuppet; you denied the last one. Why don't you just get yourself mailed a new password? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never entered an email address into the Deuterium account. UNBLOCK ME NOW. THIS BLOCK IS AN ABUSE OF PRIVILEGES AND AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY.

IT DOESNT SAY ANYWHERE IN THE RULES THAT YOU CAN BLOCK SOMEONE JUST FOR LOSING THEIR PASSWORD AFTER A LONG HIATUS FROM EDITING WIKIPEDIA. UNBLOCK ME NOW. FuManChoo 20:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that you lied again JayJG. I NEVER denied that User:ANecessaryWeevil was a sockpuppet. This is more violation of WP:AGF from you. Again, UNBLOCK ME NOW. THIS IS AN ABUSE OF YOU PRIVILEGES. IT DOESNT SAY ANYWHERE IN THE RULES THAT YOU CAN BLOCK SOMEONE JUST FOR LOSING THEIR PASSWORD AFTER A LONG HIATUS FROM EDITING WIKIPEDIA. FuManChoo 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you enter or provide an e-mail account for this sockpuppet, I'll try to get you mailed a new password for your Deuterium account. How's that? (P.S. This amounts to a denial). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to and don't have to provide Wikipedia with my email account.

According to WP:SOCK, sockpuppets are allowed if you admit them. There are many valid reasons for having sockpuppets and many people use them. I have never used sockpuppets for invalid reasons. I have admitted that this is a second account and that my prior account was deuterium. There is nothing in WP policy that says you can block me just for forgetting my password or having a sockpuppet.

Unblock me NOW. FuManChoo 20:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You only admitted it after you were caught. Why didn't you use the User:Deuterium2 account you created instead? Clearly you were attempting to evade detection. I think I've made you a reasonable offer here. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again show me where in Wikipedia Policy it says that you can block people simply for losing their password?

Again I do not want to provide Wikipedia with my email address and as far as policy goes I don't have to.

Again this is not a sockpuppet since I'm only using one account at a time, so it doesn't even qualify for WP:SOCK and I have not used it for any invalid purposes. Sockpuppets are ALLOWED for many valid purposes.

This is part of a campaign of intimidation and suppression you have waged against me (and other pro-Palestinian editors) in blatant violation of WP:AGF and your responsibilites as an admin.

For example, you voted to delete Israel-South Africa relations ([1]), a highly encyclopedic article authored entirely by me, despite the fact that it's extremely well sourced and factual. You have never explained why you voted to delete, but it's obvious you are pursuing a vendetta against me for my point of view.

You haven't heard the last of this. FuManChoo 21:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the issue up on the Administrator's Noticeboard for broader input: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Deuterium. Let's see how the community feels. You still haven't explained why you don't want a password for your real account; that alone strengthens the point that you're using this new account to avoid scrutiny. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More lies from you. I HAVE said that I want a password for Deuterium. I do NOT want to give Wikipedia my email address. FuManChoo 21:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you haven't seem to read this part of WP:SOCK I will reproduce it here.

Legitimate uses of multiple accounts

Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account in order to experience how the community functions for new users. In particular, some have suggested that Jimbo should get, and edit from, a sock puppet account. Perhaps he does.

Segregation and security

Other users employ multiple accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:

A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.

Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, some users may use an alternate account when editing under these conditions in order to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts.

Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on his/her interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity. Users with a recognized expertise in one field, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects.

A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle may wish to use a sock puppet so that readers unfamiliar with NPOV policy will not assume his/her information edits are statements of personal belief.

Keeping heated issues in one small area

Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

FuManChoo 21:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've entered an email address in this account. Email me my password for Deuterium NOW like you said you wouldJayjg or unblock me.

I still want an explanation for why I am being forced to only ever use one account, a policy which IS NOT WIKIPEDIA POLICY. FuManChoo 21:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the? Why did User:Scobell302 revert my acceptance of JayJG's offer? FuManChoo 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor I emailed about this issue has advised me to reproduce what I wrote him here, so I might as well since I don't seem to be either getting unblocked or getting a password for the Deuterium account (like JayJG said he would provide me.) This is what I wrote:

For a long time I edited as Deuterium (during which I wrote some fairly good material such as Israel-South Africa relations and Palestinian textbooks) then I went on a long hiatus of months during which I didn't access wikipedia at all. When I came back I had forgotten the password for that account (which I never entered an email address into), so I created a new account instead.

JayJG has blocked me for sockpuppet abuse, despite the fact that I'm only using one account now (this one) and I have never used sockpuppets for forbidden purposes. He is now demanding that I go back to my previous account. As far as I'm aware this enforced original-account-only policy is not part of Wikipedia policy -- which explicitly condones the use of sockpuppets for some purposes -- and I've never seen this punitive blocking happen to anyone else before.

FuManChoo 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you came back to Wikipedia you in no way identified your previous account, and only admitted it when outed. Have you seen the section of WP:SOCK I quoted above? I'll quote it again:

Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.

Until you read, understand, and accept this, I don't see how we can move forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the policy, but it doesn't apply here. My Deuterium account had made many good contributions, such as Israel-South Africa relations and the only reason I changed to this account (as I have repeatedly said) is because I lost the password to my former account and hadn't edited Wikipedia for MONTHS.

Besides,WP:SOCK also condones sockpuppets if you wish to separate your edits from your identity. I posted personally indentifiable information as Deuterium and now wish to keep my edits to Wikipedia separate from my identity. Can you read, understand, and accept this?

Legitimate uses of multiple accounts

Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account in order to experience how the community functions for new users. In particular, some have suggested that Jimbo should get, and edit from, a sock puppet account. Perhaps he does.

Segregation and security

Other users employ multiple accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:

* A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle may wish to use a sock puppet so that readers unfamiliar with NPOV policy will not assume his/her information edits are statements of personal belief.

And are you reneging on your offer to give me my old account back if I entered an email address. Was that just another lie, JayJG?FuManChoo 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Deuterium account mostly edit warred, and got blocked an astonishing number of times in a fairly brief period. Your current excuses really don't wash, nor do your continued violations of WP:CIVIL. Unless you give me some indication that you are willing to accept Wikipedia policies, including WP:SOCK and WP:CIVIL, I don't think there's much point in this. It's up to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to accept Wikipedia policies and always have been. Now give me my account back. FuManChoo 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also my Deuterium account didn't "mostly edit war", I made many valuable contributions with it such as Israel-South Africa relations, Anti-Arabism and Palestinian textbooks off the top of my head. The fact that are misrepresenting my contributions shows that you have some kind of vendetta against me. Why are you the only admin to continuously block me for alleged sockpuppet abuse? Perhaps you should leave this matter up to other admins since you are so personally involved FuManChoo 22:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks from Jmabel

I have no idea what was the issue with the account ANecessaryWeevil and what was the basis on which it was determined to be a sockpuppet, so there may be something here that I am missing. Still, Jay, assuming he is only actively using one account, I fail to see the problem. I see no evidence that he did anything fraudulent in abandoning the Deuterium account and using this one instead. I am unaware of any way he could have renewed access to an account whose password he forgot and where he hadn't given an email address. Yes, it would have been a good move if he had linked the user pages and user talk page to one another, but I see no particular reason to believe that his failure to do so had deceptive intent. I gather that the first time someone brought it up, he acknowledged it. The old account was in good standing, so there is no issue of evading a ban. There is no overlap in the periods of using the two accounts.

Jay, since Fu says that he can no longer access the Deuterium account, wouldn't it make more sense to:

unblock this account
block the Deuterium account
ask Fu to put short notes at the top of both of the relevant user pages and talk pages explaining the relationship between the accounts
get back to working on writing an encyclopedia.

I would also add that the Deuterium account was used for about 5 months and never seems to have been involved in discussions over policy. It is perfectly possible that he was unaware of what would have been the really right way to do this.

Fu, if ANW was a sockpuppet, then please knock it off. I'm supporting you on this right now, but if Jay agrees to what I've suggested, and you start sockpuppeting, that will now reflect on me and I will support a permanent hard ban, if only so that no one will make the mistake of thinking I've condoned such conduct. - Jmabel | Talk 23:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, agreed. I just want to get back to being able to contribute to Wikipedia. I have no desire to use sockpuppets again, and I haven't ever used them abusively. FuManChoo 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel, I had e-mailed one of the developers asking him to help out with the password situation, but if you think this is a better solution, I'll give it a go. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that what you wanted to do to me was so unusual and outside normal policy the you had to email a developer to get it done, rather than just using a standard procedure or something. I guess that's what happens when you single people out for special treatment. FuManChoo 23:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be paranoid. It isn't something he wanted to "do to you". It would have been another perfectly good way to get you back an account you could use. Most people would prefer to have back the account that they normally edit on; I just figured this was simpler and quicker, since you hadn't stated a specific preference. - Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoid? JayJG has openly stated that he doesn't think I belong on Wikipedia. He immediately deletes civil messages I leave on his talk page. He refers to me as a "troll". He votes to delete completely objective articles just because I've written them. I think his vote here [2] sums up his attitude quite well and demands explanation. FuManChoo 01:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I've blocked the other account and unblocked this one. Please tag both user and talk pages, as indicated by Jmabel above. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you block me for not carrying out your demands, I can't edit my user pages or Deuterium's pages because my IP is still autoblocked from editing, thanks to your earlier block.

I'll update my pages as soon as I can. I have tagged this talk page. FuManChoo

Given that you seem to have used other accounts as well (at least Deuterium2) it would probably be best to give the full list in each place.

I don't see any indication that Jayjg blocked an IP address when he blocked your account, but I'll ask him to look into it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Deuterium2 made no contributions.

Would you like me to list every account I've ever used on Wikipedia? Would you like me to list all my IP addresses as well? Would you like me to put my home address there too? Would you like me to list my phone number?

Don't bother explaining how this is required by Wikipedia policy or why I alone am required to give full disclosure, it's much more sensible to come up with random demands. FuManChoo 02:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was still caught under the autoblock for #298908. I've unblocked that so perhaps it will work now. -- Avi 00:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Hi FuManChoo,

Please add your content to Israel-South_Africa_relations, modify as necessary, and cite all sources. Try using the <ref></ref> tags which make for cleaner footnotes. Always remember WP:V and WP:NOR. A link to the relations article was placed in the WMD article, at the end of a section dealing with SA and the Vela Incident.

Also, be careful of 3RR.

Cheers

--Uncle Bungle 03:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning (deleted from User talk:Avraham [3])

You appear to have given me a vandalism warning for my edits on DLand's talk page. [4], [5]

My comments are obviously not vandalism but honest questions. Your warning was inappropriate. Please desist misusing warning templates. FuManChoo 03:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is explained on the Baruch Goldstein talk page how the dual categories are against wiki policy for mass murderers. You know this. Secondly, he is on wiki break, wait until he returns. -- Avi 03:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the mass murderer category, the fact is that Baruch Goldstein obviously belongs in the Terrorist category.

Secondly, DLand is NOT on wiki break as you well know he is actively reverting Baruch Goldstein

It's interesting that you've stopped claiming my edits are vandalism. FuManChoo 03:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove the mass murder and place the terrorism in its stead. If you would stop and read the talk page, you would see that I suggested that to you. -- Avi 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So my edits weren't vandalism then? Why did you misuse the template, Avraham? FuManChoo 03:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated WP:3RR on my talk page. Please desist with your vandalism. FuManChoo 03:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You have been blocked for violating the three revert rule on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Avraham.
This means that you have reverted an article four or more times in a 24-hour period.
Here are the offending reverts: 1 2 3 4
You are welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia when 24 hours have elapsed.

This is a very inauspicious start; 5 hours after being unblocked you have already violated 3RR. Please learn to edit in a more collegial way. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 9 November 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not violate 3RR on that page. Check the links that JayJG has provided above. They are all to the SAME REVERT>

Decline reason:

I checked the links, they are indeed all to the same diff. But a quick glance at your history and, yes, you broke the 3RR, you were indeed disruptive... and now you're gaming the system and telling half-truths in order to con gullible admins. And you got me instead. And another 19 hours to make 48 in total. This figure will climb unless you climb down from this pathetic behaviour. -- ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:37, 9 November 2006 (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.

Show me the reverts that are in violation of 3RR then, Redvers.

PS I wasn't being diruptive, I was just asking Avraham a simple question. FuManChoo 20:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were clearly being disruptive. I have looked at the reverts again... and am disgusted by the naked trolling you did against a good editor (before you ask, I have no opinion on their candidacy and do not intend to express an opinion on it). For such naked trolling, and with the full facts in front of me, I'm adding another 12 hours to your block in order to prevent you from disrupting Wikipedia further. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what trolling? I was asking Avraham a simple question, backed with links to 2 reverts of his. He could have declined to answer it or ignored it. Instead he chose to delete it.

I take it you're going to extend the ban every time I ask for an explanation. Under what policy is asking questions bannable? FuManChoo 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also your ban is against policy: WP:Trolling says "Administrators are not empowered to block usernames for "trolling"". Please reply. FuManChoo 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please give an accurate set of links to the reverts in question? Because they are not provided in the template here. - Jmabel | Talk 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was using the template improperly. If you look in the edit diff, you should be able to see the links. Here they are again, as taken from that original edit:

1st revert
2nd revert
3rd revert
4th revert

Hope that helps. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th "revert" you cite is no such thing and completely different from the first 3 edits you list there. All 4 cannot be used as part of the same WP:3RR claim, only the first 3. FuManChoo 02:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count.] It's actually highlighted in the policy. In the fourth edit you reverted Avraham's addition of a section. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Avraham violated WP:3RR with these 4 reverts. [6] [7] [8] [9]

Also, since you are quoting Wikipedia policy, perhaps you sohould read the following section: Administrator involvement

Except in cases of vandalism, if an administrator has personally been involved in a content dispute on that page, that administrator should not block the user for 3RR violations. Instead, the administrator in this situation should make a request at the administrators' noticeboard if they believe 3RR has been broken.

You were involved in the edit war and shouldn't have been the one to block me. FuManChoo 02:19, 11 November 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

Invalid 3RR block by JayJG; he was directly involved in the content dispute and did not block the other particpant in the edit war who also violated 3RR (who was on his side)

Decline reason:

Your wikilawyering and constant selective quotations of Wikipedia policy pages do not detract from the fact that you have blatantly committed 3RR and are unrepentant about it. Follow others' advice and read WP:3RR, then come back and start editing productively instead of harboring trivial grudges. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:27, 11 November 2006 (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.

As I see it what happened is that I asked Avraham a bunch of questions, he replied and then later he decided to delete the lot.

I then asked Avraham a question I had asked before but stated quite differently and with different links. He and JayJG deleted this again and I restored this question 2 times (because I felt it deserved an answer) but not any more than 2 times because I am well aware of WP:3RR.

Avraham then replaced my questions with a personal attack against me which I deleted. He did not restore this.

At no point did I violate the 3RR rule because the second question was quite different from the earlier questions. And if I had been told or warned that I had broken 3RR I would have self-reverted if possible, as I have done on earlier occasions when I have made mistakes. It appears JayJG waited until long after the alleged violation to block me.

Regardless I had gotten the message and was not going to post again on the page. it was my impression that bans are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. FuManChoo 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked for 3RR about 5 times in your brief edit history; at this point you should be quite familiar with the 3RR policy. If not, read it. And you do not appear to have "gotten the message", since you have yet to accept any responsibility for any of your actions, so it appears that this block is simply delaying further tendentious edit-warring on your part. Time will tell. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say: 3RR is not a license to make three reverts every 24 hours. It is intended as a line in the sand that says "once behavior crosses this line, it is clearly out of even the gray zone" and should result in an automatic block rather than someone needing to weigh matters.

On the other hand: Avraham is a candidate for Arbitrator. I would think it perhaps reasonable for him to refuse to answer questions he considers inappropriate, but less reasonable to suppress evidence that the question had been asked. But I will take that up elsewhere.

Fu, you probably should have brought this to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006 instead of edit warring. With a history of edit warring, and at least one admin viewing you (rightly or wrongly) as a problem user, it is unlikely that people will cut you slack over it. - Jmabel | Talk 17:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emails

In reply to your emails: first, please do not selectively quote essay pages at me. The full quote reads "Administrators are not empowered to block usernames for "trolling", although some accounts used for little other purpose have been blocked for this reason and have remained blocked.". Second, please note that your block was extended for disruption of Wikipedia, in order to prevent you from continuing to disrupt Wikipedia as you had been and were threatening to do. Third, your straw man argument about extending your block each time you ask for an unblock is noted, but since I neither did that nor planned to do it nor threatened to do, the point is moot. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]