User talk:Weedbag

Welcome!

Hello, Weedbag, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! (Thunderclacker the F22 (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sockpuppets? In my Wikipedia Talk Page? It's more likely then you think. Weedbag (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User:Jaysweet, you will be blocked from editing. Jaysweet (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is vandalism then any accusation of being a sockpuppet is vandalism (you sockpuppet) ZOMG YOU JUST VANDALIZED MUH PAGE Weedbag (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. You vandalized my User page [[User:Jaysweet]. I put a warning on your talk page User talk:Weedbag. Put whatever you want on my talk page User talk:Jaysweet (of course if it is a personal attack, that will just get you blocked faster). --Jaysweet (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of forever from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:37, 28 February 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think you can tell by my contributions i was and could be a productive wikipedia member, I just felt it was wrong that Jaysweet was throwing around accusations of people being sockpuppets without proof. I stopped any vandalism (if it can be viewed as that) on his talk page when he asked me to, and I brought the argument to my own talk page, where it would not be viewed as vandalism. A permanent ban seems harsh considering i just accused Jaysweet of being a sockpuppet, just as he was accusing several others of being.

Decline reason:

Clear harassment, and you don't seem to appreciate how absolutely inappropriate this is. — Yamla (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (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 was not throwing around accusations of sockpuppetry, and in fact my allegation against other sockpuppets was well-founded. The really damning thing about Weedbag is that he/she got upset about my allegations before I ever accused him/her of sockpuppetry:

Maybe I am wrong, but it begs the question, why did Weedbag jump into Ma1kel's user talk page, especially when Ma1kel and EctoplasmOnToast are obvious sockpuppets? I don't get it. But hey, maybe I am wrong. Run a checkuser and we'll see. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my report against Weedbag was because multiple accounts were making personal attacks against me on multiple pages at once (User talk:Ma1kel, User:Jaysweet, etc.) and I wanted it to stop. The fact that I suspected Weedbag of sockpuppetry was somewhat tangential to the AIV. In retrospect, I actually no longer think Weedbag is a sockpuppet, I just think he/she made an inaccurate accusation against me (and I remain bewildered about his/her motives, but whatever...)

I am okay with lifting Weedbag's block or reducting the duration, on the condition that any contact with me in the future results in the indef block being reapplied. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I was upset was not because you thought I was a sockpuppet ( I dont think you ever accused me of one) but because you accused [[user:Ma1kel] of being one, when he clearly was one of two trolls vandalizing Youtube. I agree, it was stupid of me to go off on you, I apologize, you had every right to do what you did. Weedbag (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<shrug> In any case, it's out of my hands now... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and once again, sorry for being a dumbass.Whoops, forgot my tildes Weedbag (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I have realized what I did was wrong and apologized to the harassed user. The user who requested my block has relized I am not a sockpuppet (just an idiot at the wrong place at the wrong time) and is OK with a lift of the block or a lift of the duration. This block is a bit too harsh considering the two confirmed sockpuppets seemed to only get a month ban :/}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You were not blocked for sockpupetry but for harassment. [1] is clear harassment. However, given that the offended user has accepted your appology, and thus I am lifting the block. However, be aware that any further problems will result in an instant return of the block forever. You have been warned.

Request handled by: Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]