User talk:Swamilive

Appealing indefinite block

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello Wikipedia administrators,

My account has been blocked for more than one and a half years and it is set to an indefinite block. I recognize the fact that I got it to this state by disrupting the harmony of Wikipedia and generally showing an infantile lack of decorum and respect. However, that was quite a long time ago and I no longer feel any desire to continue the types of activities I was doing back then. I am requesting that the Swamilive account be unblocked so that I can use it for constructive purposes. I understand that it must be very hard to take me seriously regarding this, considering the extent of my disruptions in the past. However, I can give you my word that I'm sincere. If need be, an appointed admin can monitor my behaviour, for as long as they feel is necessary, to ensure that I do not abuse editing privileges.

I assure you that I fully accept responsibility for all my behaviour in the past and I absolutely promise not to repeat any of the actions that got me blocked in the first place. In the time I've been off Wikipedia I've changed in a number of ways (I'm certainly a much more mature person than I was back then). I've also familiarized myself with the existing policies in preparation for my appeal and they are clear and well-understood. Overall, I've come to enjoy and respect Wikipedia and I use it nearly every day. I would really appreciate a chance to undo the wrong I did and to start making positive contributions.

Please give my request proper consideration.

Thank you,
Swamilive

Decline reason:

This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = [[Article title]] =) and save the page before you improve it.
Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Blueboy 96 01:44, 30 April 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 understand the reason for the decline, but it raises a few important points. Namely, concerning the bit about requiring the original blocking admin's approval. To the best of my observation, that particular admin has not been active on Wikipedia for over a year. Could the removal of my block be possible without his/her approval, considering the apparent fact that they no longer contribute to the project?

Secondly, the majority of the articles I've read and have encountered issues with need nothing more than simple corrections in grammar, punctuation, and spelling. I could scour the list of articles needing improvement, but in truth, the majority of the edits I intend to make, if unblocked, would be stylistic ones, rather than control of content. Surely, not every contributor to Wikipedia is expected to make substantial, referenced additions to articles. There are some, like myself, who would prefer to be useful in simply maintaining a degree of acceptable English. Swamilive (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion at ANI has revealed you were actively socking via IPs as late as March. This second chance is now revoked. Blueboy 96 03:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make that the end of May... ANI thread — e. ripley\^talk 14:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ongoing vandalism and sock puppetry

Rear admiral

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rear_admiral&action=historysubmit&diff=364231941&oldid=362963092
- User talk:216.26.223.38
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.26.223.38

Brigadier General

List of sock puppets

Banned?

Elockid appears to have banned this account without any explanation. If there is reason for such a harsh and permanent change to my account status, I would appreciate being properly informed of what that reason is. Elockid's edit summary of "banned. nobody in their right mind would unblock you now" seems completely unfair if no feasible explanation is given. Swamilive (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lying or playing innocent isn't going to get you anywhere. I mean look at the thread above. So considering the amount of long-termvandalism and disruptive editing you have been doing, a ban is completely justified. Oh, the ban is on this account, the ban is placed on you. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elokid, bearing in mind that I'm not questioning your desire to prevent further vandalism from Swamilive, by what basis is the user now "banned"? Note that WP:BAN states "individual users, including admins, may not directly impose bans". Was there a discussion that I missed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're basically de facto banned since I don't think any administrator would unblock a long-term and persistent vandal (if you can find me a willing admin, I will remove tag myself). None of the other threads I've seen also suggests that the community wants him back. Of course, you may start a discussion if you feel this is inappropriate or if you feel so strongly about it, remove the tag. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Delicious carbuncle. I will accept a ban to this account if it can be both properly justified and imposed within the rules of Wikipedia. As it stands, one admin has taken it upon him/herself to impose a ban with no explanation or concensus from anyone else. Swamilive (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)I'm not suggesting that Swamilive be unblocked or that anyone would be willing to do so if requested, but that's not the point here. Since you admit that your action is contrary to policy, please remove the tag yourself. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said or admitted it was contrary to policy. My point is that they are basically banned, in this case de facto banned because no one at this point will unblock them. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an assumption I think only you are making, Elockid. Let the community impose a ban if that's the general concensus. Please don't assume the decisions of others. Swamilive (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed that your statement about them being "de facto banned" was a de facto admission that you knew they weren't banned by any of the means listed in the policy. Let's not make this complicated - they aren't banned and you shouldn't have added the tag. Please remove it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle, will it cause you trouble to remove the tag yourself, since Elockid seems unwilling to do so? You seem to have a better grasp on policy here, but I don't know if removing such a tag will look bad on you. I don't really care who removes it, but I agree that it wasn't placed there with proper authority. Swamilive (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Delicious carbuncle. Since you insist so strongly. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Elockid. Swamilive (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thoroughly confused. Can someone summarise the above in one paragraph? If so, much appreciated! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Pdfpdf - In a nutshell, Elockid assumed that I made an edit to Garrison under the IP 216.26.209.146 and imposed an illegal ban on me. This is only an assumption as he did not make clear the reason for the ban, but it's probably a safe assumption considering he imposed the ban only one minute after reverting the edit to Garrison. His edit summary regarding my banning was not civil and was also imposed without the concensus of other admins. This is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy, as Delicious carbuncle pointed out. WP:BAN states that "individual users, including admins, may not directly impose bans", therefore a request was made for Elockid to remove the ban. Hopefully that clears things up :) Swamilive (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it's not an illegal ban. That was on the basis on the a de facto ban which it is evident Delicious carbuncle doesn't know about, which was already pointed out by Jéské Couriano previously and which many experienced editors know about. Secondly, you're not fooling anyone with that Garrison edit nor that IP. This is kind of funny, because I didn't even mention anything about that Garrison edit. I didn't even block that IP. Thirdly, in a couple of days, you will be de jure and de facto banned. So it doesn't matter. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elockid, without trying to be insulting, it appears that the problem here is that you do not understand what "de facto" means in this context. It means that Swamilive is in effect banned - that is, no admin is willing to unblock them so they are in a state that is more or less equivalent to having been banned. They are not, however, banned. What you did is contrary to the WP:BAN policy which lays out the ways in which bans can come about -- note the absence of "de facto bans" in the list -- and explicitly states that no single user, including an admin, can impose a ban. It is troubling to me that you seem unable to acknowledge that your actions were in violation of policy and that you continue to try to argue about something that is very very clear. While I am not in any way defending the actions of Swamilive, your last comment and desire to see them banned seem unnecessarily vindictive. Range blocks will stop Swamilive. A ban will do nothing. It would make me feel somewhat better about your judgement if you would be willing to admit that you have simply made a mistake here and move on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a ban may do something. Swamilive has stated that it's harsh, so maybe it will do something. Maybe he'll realize that his repeated actions of sockpuppetry, vandalism, and disruptive editing come with a greater consequence than just a rangeblock or blocking individual accounts and IPs. It's not vindictive either. A user who has been engaging in sockpuppetry coupled with vandalism and disruptive editing for almost 2 years if not longer? Honestly, one year is long enough, and he's overly exhausted the community's patience. The blatant lies by Swamilive are also not helping. Rangeblocks don't always work. For example, the blocking range might be too small, they can't always be widened and rangeblocks cannot be implemented all the time. He was essentially banned since 2008 per this thread. Since we're not going to come into agreement with the status of what a de facto ban is, I suggest just leaving it here. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elockid, I think you are misunderstanding what a ban is. A ban is when someone is banned, yes? I think you are mistaking it for a great heaving and writhing mass of cephalopod machine tools. There is no bonus from inflicting the machine-tool bundle with its little octopus tentacles upon this user! If you have ever brushed against a giant squid you will realise that upon its skin are thousands of tiny little cutting-knives, which will hurt the flesh. It is as if you were proposing to whip this poor user with a great flailing whip! I think we can all agree that the whipping of any unconsenting user (and user:Swamilive, I think we can all agree, has not consented) would be a cruel and unfair punishment. You might as well load him into a powerful cannon and fire him into a very large watermelon or similar fruit! These are the actions of a madman, user:Elockid, and I do hope that you will issue an apology to all concerned before someone pops you inside a really big tyre, like the tyre from a big tractor, and sets you rolling down a steep or gentle slope, only to come to a halt in a mountain of butter! Anthony J. Postwar (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting imagery, Anthony J. Postwar, and I appreciate the defense. However, your comment is ultimately unwelcome by community standards. I'm sure Elockid's motives are honest, though he lacks the ability to state them eloquently. Still, regardless of his level of intellect, there is no merit to insulting him with comments like the ones you've provided. Again, thank you for the support, but please abide by the rules. Swamilive (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may need to get a life - I find this a combination of highly entertaining and incredibly depressing. I think Swamilive and Elockid know exactly what's going on, and trying to be as uninsulting as possible, and with very great respect, I think the other editors are suffering a conflict of interest between their laudable and justifiable views of the world, and the reality that Elockid is trying to make them aware of, and the resulting mismatches.

Where to start?

Swamilive:

First, thank you for the summary. It gave me a pretty good understanding of what was going on. Not withstanding the fact that, as I would expect, you have chosen to present it in the manner that suits your purposes, I appreciate the effort you have gone to. Thank you.
(As an aside, you stongly invoke in me the memory of Mandy Rice-Davies#"Well, he would, wouldn't he?". I mention this because I expect that, like me, you would have very great respect for Ms Rice-Davies wit.)

Second, I have very mixed feelings towards you. On the one hand, you're a bloody nuisance! On the other hand, you have worked out how to take the mickey out of the self-important and pompous wiki-self-appointed-and-self-professed-wannabe-gods, and I find it highly amusing to watch you amuse yourself at others' expense. However, you are an extremely destructive pain-in-the-neck, and a MAJOR waste of time.
(c.f. Why-the-heck am I writing this? Don't I have anything better to do with my life? Similarly, why-the-heck are you doing this? Don't YOU have anything better to do with YOUR life?)

Can you not find a less destructive way to amuse yourself and others?

Elockid: Hang on in there please. You seem to be a member of a tiny minority who recognise what this guy is up to, and a member of an even smaller group (perhaps of size=1) who know how to deal with this guy.

Others: Come on guys! Get real!! Swamilive is abusing the systems for all he can get out of it, and whilst you support him, he is indeed getting a lot out of it. You are going to achieve NOTHING useful by "shooting the messenger" - lay off Elockid and address the REAL problems please.

My 2c worth. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Postwar

This user was blocked as they were assumed to be a sockpuppet of me. I encourage the blocking admin (jpgordon) to review which IP address the account was created from. Whoever the user is, they are not a sockpuppet. They certainly chose the wrong way to start their wikilife, but they are not guilty of sockpuppetry and are thus unjustly blocked. Swamilive (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, the admin blocked two other users (Lime Prophet and HAPPYMARLIN) under suspicion of sockpuppeting me. None of these accounts have anything to do with me.

Also looks like he's tagging Lucky Part of Me. Swamilive (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]