User talk:Miesbu/archives

RE:User:John Reaves

I had the same question as you did about the above, but if you look in his contribs he was the one who blocked himself, and then unblocked himself. Looks like just a mistake. Thought I would let you know! Good luck editing.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Onorem♠Dil 16:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood.

The socks I referred to included CBOrgatrope and miscellaneous others, not to you. I would, however, always prefer people to use one account; however, you appear not to be misusing them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Per the duck test. If you can prove your original account is not currently blocked or banned then you may be able to persuade someone to unblock you. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor's most obvious other account is not banned. However, checking through this editor's contributions, I don't see much positive being done. I am increasingly disapproving of this recent trend of editors creating second accounts to be argumentative with. I am therefore not going to unblock. Note that I am not warranting that this user is not a reincarnation of a blocked/banned user - simply that they have another account that is not currently banned and I haven't done the research far enough for anything else. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the intent of that exception was to allow users to edit on controversial topics (e.g. abortion) without fear of their views on such being associated with their main account (possibly leading to online or RL problems). A case can certainly be made for including 'meta topics' in that exception... debates about Wikipedia procedures can be just as heated and just as likely to inspire grudges, but there is a point at which it seems more like a shield against consequences for incivil behavior. This account seemed to start out right at that point and go downhill fast from there. I came to this page because I was considering blocking temporarily based on that behavior alone. Since they apparently aren't connected with any known banned accounts an unblock, as Guy said above, might be appropriate... but not just yet and IMO not without an understanding that the sock-puppet exception isn't intended to allow alternate accounts to be deliberately confrontational and/or disruptive. Only to shield civil and reasonable contributions from retaliation based solely on opposition to the topic they cover. --CBD 12:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for making other people mad. As CBD says, debates about Wikipedia procedures can be heated. I would eventually like to be unblocked but for now it's not a priority because this user account is for discussion and I mainly make mainspace edits. I don't agree with the statement that I don't do anything positive. I created a nice article on a historic figure and, after very polite and civil discussion with another user, merged that article with another one. Again, sorry that some people are mad. Miesbu 18:09, 6 November 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not asking you to unblock. Please process this request by saying "This request was forwarded to the requested parties. (unless you want to save everyone trouble and just unblock)" - - - Please forward this request to CBD and Guy. To CDB and Guy, after blocking, checkuser and ArbCom member Morven certified above that I am not a sock or banned user and that I was not misusing this account. Therefore, I should be unblocked as I meet Guy's (blocking admin) criteria for unblock. To CBD, please unblock if Guy wants someone else to as mentioned. I promise to be thoughtful and considerate from now on. I have had more than one month to think about this.

Decline reason:

Unblock requests are not for passing messages. Use the e-mail feature, or contact them through your other account. — Sandstein (talk) 18:59, 9 December 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.