User talk:Chefsuffolk

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

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).

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

Request reason:

Amazing. I'm supposed to prove that "the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" - yet the person placing the block never offered up a shred of evidence that my edits were dispruptive. No, the accusation by an editor who constantly engages in warring and throws around sockpuppeting accusations like candy at a Halloween party was enough, I guess. Never mind that multiple people he's accused of being SPs have already come forward with the truth. No, because Drmargi and Dreadstar - whoever they are - are WikiPals, the block goes up and stays forever, I guess. Never mind the actual truth, that's irrelevant here I suppose. Anyone looking over the List of Iron Chef America Episodes discussion page can see quite clearly what's going on, but I suppose no one gives a crap. The roost is ruled by the lodest rooster, and Drmargi it is, I guess. I officially give up. I no longer care. If Drmargi wants to own the page by having every user who disagrees with him/her banned, so be it. No skin off my ass. I attempted to be helpful, to make the page more accurate, but obviously that's as relevant as the accuracy of the claims made against me. Fine. Chefsuffolk (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please only use this template for unblock requests. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Because it's not true? Fuck this shit.Chefsuffolk (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:15, 11 March 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Lovely. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? The ban is based on some "suspected" flibbertyjibbit. All because one particular user, Drmargi (a user who regularly gets into edit wars, breaks the 3RR, and exhibits constant ownership behavior) can't stand being wrong or having people disagree with him/her. So s/he throws out baseless accusations and then someone goes ahead and puts in a ban on his/her word alone, with no proof beyond some "suspected" mishmosh. Now I have to prove that the block is "not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" when the person who requested the block never proved it was necessary in the first place? Horsesh*t, if you ask me. Chefsuffolk (talk) 4:02 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Blaming other editors will not get your block lifted. Address the issues that led to your block and your behavior and you'll do much better. TN X Man 20:38, 14 March 2011 (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'm leaving a note here for poor chefsuffolk, since he appears either insufficiently familiar with how to research the goings-on here, or uninclined to do so.

I'm user occasionallyhelping, and maybe ten days or so ago when I posted on List of Iron Chef America Episodes while not logged in, drmargi flagged that IP on "suspicion" of being a sockpuppet of you. Of course, I'm not, but apparently she has had good results getting people to do her bidding by using that sockpuppet claim any time she doesn't get agreed with by a cross-section of contributors on a page she is obsessed with (which happens a fair amount -- check her contribs log).

Telling a bureacrat, even a volunteer one, that something isn't true does not impress them one whit -- even if it actually *isn't* true. The fact about bureacracies is that its functionaries seek to protect themselves and (as part of that process) their organization. The exercise of unchecked power is also gratifying to many who seek positions of control in a bureaucracy. Truth simply isn't the issue. Status, power, and prerogatives are -- perhaps even more nakedly so when (as here) no monetary compensation is involved.

Facts **with evidence** are the only things that have a shot (but no guarantee). So check the User talk:74.108.11.202 page, and also the bottom of the Talk page for the List of Iron Chef America page where Drmargi started editwarring with you; I included my input there, over a week ago now. If Drmargi got a block put on you by calling my IP a sockpuppet of you, and no one cares that it was simply a self-serving lie similar to many others she appears by activity pattern to have engaged in, then that tells all of us plenty about wikipedia down in the trenches. Perhaps it's highminded in theory, but in practice perhaps it's as creepy as the old usenet forums that were dominated and ruined by the bossiest members of groups, back in the 80s and 90s. That would be useful information to find out. So it's a win-win if you give evidence. Either you get satisfaction and fair treatment, or you realize it's a clique of nasty people, and you can go ahead and let it go, and tell people that.

O, and by the way, a couple of days after Drmargi got Dreadstar to block you, she got him a barnstar award. See what I mean about cliques, and people taking care of themselves and each other within an organization? Organizations are more like organisms that protect themselves at the expense of anyone else. Check people's user talk pages, and you'll see how things work in reality.Occasionallyhelping (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having fun yet, chefsuffolk? I always keep this page in mind to refer people to, if they want to see how wikipedia really works, in contrast to the highminded but hollow rhetoric about cooperative, constructive cultural work.Occasionallyhelping (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Beer

Hello Chefsuffolk! welcome to WikiProject Beer! We are a group of editors who work together to better organize information in articles related to beer.

The goals of WikiProject Beer:

Consensus about the organization of beer and brewery related articles.
Coordination of editing on beer, brewery, and pub related articles.
Categorization of beer, brewery, and pub articles.
Creation, expansion, and maintenance of beer, brewery, and pub articles.
To help maintain the Beer portal.

What you can do right now:

You may also want to add {{User WikiProject Beer}} to your userpage to show others your interest in beer related articles.
If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.
You may even want to add these pages to your watchlist.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this page and someone will come along. Once again, welcome to the project!

SilkTork *^YES! 21:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beer

I agree that there are a few people (such as myself) who dispute the "beerness" of such a distilled product - but we need a source for such a statement. If you have a source, please add it - I would prefer to have some form of qualifying statement that such freeze distilled products are disputed as beers. SilkTork *^YES! 21:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of multiple IPs and registered account as disruptive editing

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Drmargi (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dreadstar ☥ 04:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]