User talk:QuisCustodio
Welcome!
|
What?
Seriously? faithless (speak) 17:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to get in on this too, in regards to your comment; "If you would ever bother to READ the discussion above". Perhaps you should follow your own advice WW, as like Faithless said I was obviously referring to the part that says; "This is not a page for letting off steam about any Wikipedian or class of Wikipedians." I believe you were trying to use this sock account to draw the AdminReview crowd into an outside debate, violating your own terms of use. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Fin.
QuisCustodio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Two of wikipedia's most abusive administrators came to this page making comments about it being a "kangaroo court" when they're involved in the actual kangaroo court mockeries that are the major problem of Wikipedia today. And of course, it doesn't stop there either, with the spending of enormous amounts of time trying to twist my words and tar me. Strangelove couldn't be bothered follow proper procedure on informing me of what he was doing, either, thus a complete lack of chance (now OR before) to speak in my own defence. His little deletion at 22:52, 24 February 2009 is the only way I noticed what was going on there, and that only because I thought to check his contrib and log record. I find them to be the typical abusers that are the disease of wikipedia, nothing more. If I thought wikipedia were fair and honest, if I even for a moment thought that any remaining honest administrators would ever stand up against the kind of abuse the overwhelming majority of admins practice daily, then there would be no need to speak this way. Instead, as I have stated before: I will not put up with getting emails or phone calls regarding this issue, and the number of witch-hunt emails I've already seen show me that trying to reform Wikipedia won't happen without that kind of behavior from entrenched and power-mad individuals. You can delete my previous response to them Tony, and since it's your page that's fine. If they decided to abuse their power, or get someone else to abuse power on their behalf, on the basis of a completely dishonest wikilawyering decision from a corrupt kangaroo court named Arbcom, then they obviously have power and intend to exercise it with no oversight by the little peons. Which tyrannical regime's police force I equate them to is immaterial to the comparison. Obviously their opinion can be easily restated by The beatings will continue until morale improves. WW,QuisCustodio 20:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. --auburnpilot talk 21:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
2.0
QuisCustodio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Well why don't we take these in turn: 1 - this block is as illegitimate as the first. 2 - I am uninterested in the wikilawyering nonsense produced by a corrupt kangaroo court that has recently been tossed out on their collective ears for their corrupt behavior, the replacements of which are just as corrupt. 3 - I was never informed of the so-called "investigation" proceedings, making yet another violation of policy by the illegitimate admin Strangelove and the corrupt clerk and "checkuser" involved. 4 - I have every right to be protected from harassment in my personal life, and the witch hunts surrounding any attempt to reform the collectively abusive administration of Wikipedia (from "mere admins" on up) prove my point quite well. Since my real identity is known in connection to my normal account and there are those who have my email and phone number, it shall never be given to you. Sincerely, WW,QuisCustodio 03:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have not addressed the reason for your block, and have instead, in both of your unblock requests, thrown around unsubtantiated attacks against several admins and checkusers. Since you only seem interested in making these unsubstantiated attacks, and show no interest in actually abiding by the established rules of Wikipedia, this will be the last unblock request you leave at this account. If you wish to be unblocked, make a proper unblock request at your first account, or contact an arbcom member at their email addresses described at WP:ARBCOM and request a review of your case. Be aware that unblock requests worded like the ones above will be refused out of hand, and will not result in you being unblocked. Via con dios. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
QuisCustodio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ah yes, Jayron32, abusive admin extraordinaire, who's just [1] itching to get at anyone who tries to reform Wikipedia and even keeps his own hit-list page of "people to be watched" to that effect]. It seems little to no surprise that THIS particular paragon of corruption should be the one popping his despotic head up to attack me, to deny without cause or reason my placed request, and to without any basis in fact or reality abuse his power to lock off even my ability to edit my own talkpage.
My complaints stand. The block is illegitimate, fulfilling NONE of the points to which the blocking policy indicates, to wit: Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. These blocks are not even close to fulfilling that; instead, they have been placed specifically to silence dissent and protect power of the most abusive and corrupt of Wikipedia's members, using persons like myself as a threat to any others who would dare to question those who believe that those who "enforce" policy need not follow it.
Decline reason:
We don't tolerate request with personal attacks or block evasion. Goodbye. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.16.7.127 (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I support AdminReview, but I don't support sock puppets. If I had known that it was this easy to get this account blocked I would've reported it immediately, I just assumed the admins were aware of it and therefore condoned it. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Note about the deletion referred to above..
The deletion was a redirect of my malformed sock report that a clerk was nice enough to fix for me. [2]. The full request is here: [3] for those interested. I'm more than happy to have my actions here reviewed by anyone reading this. RxS (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)