User talk:Macromonkey

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to request an unblock. A fair amount of time has passed since my original block, and I wish to reform.

Decline reason:

Decline. You need to specify how you plan to proceed if unblocked. Seek mentorship? Voluntarily self-ban yourself from the topics which proved troublesome for you? How do you plan to reform? Vsmith (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2010 (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 too would certainly like to hear what is meant by "reform". I happen to be one of the editors attacked by this editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request is on hold because the reviewer is waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator.

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

Blocking administrator: Vsmith (talk)

Reviewing administrator: Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request reason:

I would be perfectly willing to seek both mentorship and to refrain from editing certain topics, until I am deemed ready, or indefinitely if need be

Administrator use only:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1=I would be perfectly willing to seek both mentorship and to refrain from editing certain topics, until I am deemed ready, or indefinitely if need be|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed|1=I would be perfectly willing to seek both mentorship and to refrain from editing certain topics, until I am deemed ready, or indefinitely if need be|accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

I'm placing this unblock on hold for discussion. It has been quite some time since you were originally blocked, but it also appears you engaged in socking for a while afterwards. So, it's not as cut and dried as just taking your word for it. Please specify which topics you would self-ban yourself from. Any further comments from the blocking admin or other users are also welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been perusing through your contributions, and it looks like you did do some good work, you seem to have a decent grasp of WP:CSD, but you also seemed to be using edit summaries as a substitute for actual conversation on the talk page, and of course in your final "meltdown" you resorted to simple vandalism and edit warring. This is the heart of your issues here, when you got frustrated, you lashed out, instead of pursuing proper channels of dispute resolution. Rather than self-banning from certain articles, it might be more helpful to focus on understanding the Wiki model more fully, and that it's not a battleground. Coming into conflict with other users is more or less inevitable if you edit here, you need to understand and abide by the idea that consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for decision making, regardless of what articles you are editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that my conduct was against the WP rules. If required, I would be happy to stay away from any articles on the paranormal etc, as that was the main area of conflict. To be honest, I have little desire to return to those articles anyway. Thanks for taking my case into consideration. Macromonkey (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]