User talk:Flameviper

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).

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

Request reason:

Please put this page on your watchlist, I need someone to talk to...

Decline reason:

Looks up WP:SOCK*...are sockpuppets allowed by users who are avoiding a block placed upon their main account? Oh look, no. Metros 14:53, 13 June 2007 (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.

Metros, I e-mailed you. Check your inbox.

Also, I want a response to my e-mail. If you do not respond, I'll take that as an indicator that you're either too weak to formulate a response to my bone-crushing persuasion or you totally agree with everything I say and that my message was so perfect you didn't need to respond.

I never made an "abusive sockpuppet". Two-Sixteen never would have been banned if you thought he was a different person than me. It may as well have been another person.

Why should my treatment as Two-Sixteen have differed from my treatment as Flameviper?

That difference in treatment, my friends, is why I was banned.

I never did anything that was outright evil. I never made personal attacks, I didn't vandalise anything, I didn't violate 3RR or any of the other infinite rules.

All I did was say something to Elaragirl. On her talk page.

At the top of her talk page, IN BRIGHT RED LETTERS NO LESS, was a notice from Elaragirl that basically stated that on her talk page, one could be less constrained than normally.

So I went ahead and spoke my mind. I told her that we were either going to get along or not get along, basically. And that's what I meant. It wasn't intended to be a "personal attack" and both of us acknowledged that. I e-mailed her later on and apoligized for being rude, and she basically told be that it was no big deal and that she didn't mind.

But it doesn't matter whether I actually violated a rule or not. Metros, who had been riding my ass for the last month or so, seized the opportunity to attack me for the "violation of policy". Techincally, it was a violation of policy, but it wasn't really; the same way that lending someone your money isn't the same as being robbed.

If Metros hadn't been riding my ass for the month previous to that, I never would have been banned. It's as simple as that; when you try to find fault in someone, you will do so.

So after a few months of silent reflection that I had imposed upon myself, I decided to start again. I had tried to contact the administrators through every other avenue; my talk page, e-mail, the mailing list, everything. My talk page was locked for "unblock abuse" even though I was just trying to have a conversation. My e-mails to administrators were ignored. The mailing list was of no help whatsoever.

I had no choice but to create a sockpuppet.

You caused this through your own ignoring of my attempts to contact you.

~ Flameviper 14:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flameviper, if you had created a sockpuppet and just gone about your merry way editing and then requested a block lift of your Flameviper account, I suspect that given the forgiving mood at the unblocking discussion that was ongoing this probably would have been ignored as not a big deal. The fact that you actively participated in the unblock discussion with an alternate account and at no time stated that it was actually you is damning. If you don't see what is wrong with that that there is little more to say here. Nobody else caused this situation, this is a direct result of choices you yourself made. I have no history with you and was only peripherally aware of your existence before the WP:CN discussion. I was willing to give you a second chance per the discussion there as were many other editors, but that support apparently evaporated when you sockpuppeted the discussion. Sorry Flameviper, but it would appear that you burned through your last chance.--Isotope23 15:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said "that sounds okay to me". Very abusive right there, I mean giving the thumbs up to something is definitely disruptive to the encyclopedia. ~ Flameviper 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you made that comment under the perception that you were another individual, not the editor who's ban was being discussed. Do you really not see how that betrays the community goodwill that was driving the consensus to unblock you? The consensus was "if Flameviper is willing to adhere to community standards and work with other editors, then he can be unblocked"... but you were specifically breaking those standards by sockpuppeting while banned. You betrayed the trust that several editors where displaying towards you, and from some of the comments left at that discussion after the block, it appears that at least some of the editors have burned through their patience with you. You simply are not allowed to edit through sockpuppets while blocked or banned. You edited with sockpuppets and squandered a fair amount of goodwill towards allowing you to edit again. If I were you, I'd call it a day.--Isotope23 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to respond to your email right here this way everyone knows that I'm not bowing down to your wtf did you call it? "Bone-crushing persuasion". You claim that you were blocked for that edit to Elaragirl's page. No, you were blocked for crap like this User_talk:Jpgordon/Archive_2#WTF, User_talk:Jpgordon/Archive_2#WP:RFC, User_talk:Jpgordon/Archive_2#Oversight.2C_again, [1], [2], [3], etc. etc. The edit to Elaragirl's page is just one of many, many offenses. Metros 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what Two-Sixteen did to be disruptive or abusive. One diff that a regular user (you for example) would be punished for. ~ Flameviper 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the whole violation of WP:SOCK thing was a disruption and abuse. Just a tad, minor offense in your opinion apparently. Metros 15:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Metros said, the very fact that you were editing at all with the Two-Sixteen account is a violation of WP:SOCK#Circumventing policy.--Isotope23 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you guys aren't getting the point. Instead of blindly following the rules, try to understand the principles behind the rules. Instead of spewing WP:THIS and WP:THAT, why don't you actually explain why action X was wrong? ~ Flameviper 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my above comments, I've both explained what you did wrong per policy and why it was wrong from a community standpoint.--Isotope23 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anymore. It's over now. The sockpuppeting, the vandalism, the personal attacks. Over. I did something wrong. Sorry I inconvenienced you all.

I wanted to leave. I saw that I was an immature idiot and I wanted to give it some time. But now, I don't know what to do. I've been banned again... I can't have that on my concience forever. If I were to be unblocked right now, I swear upon my honour that I would not edit Wikipedia for a long time. I would ban myself. I just want to know that I did this myself. That I left of my own free will and that I wasn't banned for being an ass. ~ Flameviper 17:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you Flameviper is to just walk away right now. There is no chance you are going to get unblocked right now. None. I'm not trying to be rude or derogatory, I'm just stating the facts as I seem them. It's time to walk away from Wikipedia for a good, long while. Find another hobby to take up your time. Maybe in a year or so the community will be willing to forgive and forget, but right now there is no realistic chance your editing privileges will be reinstated and you are just torturing yourself by staying here and continuing these requests. Try to look at it as a learning experience.--Isotope23 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking this way too seriously if this is going to be "on your concience forever." It's the internet. We're going to forget about you in weeks, months. No one's going to mourn the loss of Flameviper (unless you come back with yet another sockpuppet to idolize you) and we'll all move on, as should you. You want us to unban you so you can just walk away? No thanks, we'll keep you blocked in case you change your mind on your ban. I, for one, know that I'll sleep quite alright tonight with these actions that have been taken. If you "wanted to leave" how come you stated that you were trying to get Two-Sixteen to adminship eventually? If you "wanted to leave" how come you stated yesterday that you were ready to write articles? Metros 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I owe Wikipedia a debt for my past actions. I once thought that I could repay that debt by helping out... now I realize that it is best for me to leave. ~ Flameviper 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walking away now would be the mature thing to do...--Isotope23 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put a message from me on the top of my user page then? ~ Flameviper 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not going to put a message up for you as if you were walking away on your own terms. You have been banned by the community based on your actions and your user page must reflect this. Metros 19:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I would just appreciate if you could put a little message above (or even below) the "banned" infoboxes. ~ Flameviper 19:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be protected to prevent Flameviper causing further time wastage by attention seeking. Kamryn Matika 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting people's time with attention seeking. I'm having a productive discussion about what went wrong. ~ Flameviper 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, people have gone over this with you many, many times. Kamryn Matika 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...