Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:57, 23 March 2009

El Machete Guerrero

I am forced to use this talkpage as the talkpage for El Machete Guerrero as OhNoitsJamie has put a ridiculous protection on my talkpage effectively putting an end of me being able to defend myself against a equally ridiculous indefinate block! He used the reason "Protected User talk:El Machete Guerrero: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked ( (expires 05:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)))", which is complete nonsense and I have not been using my talkpage for inappropriate editing whatsoever! So again I am going to use the same request block until someone actually reads it, and even before an admin thinks about using the invalid reason "confirmed abusive sockpuppetry per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/El_Machete_Guerrero/Archive". Let it be known you are breaking wikipedia policy per my reason "There is absolutely NO confirmation of abusive sockpuppetry per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/El_Machete_Guerrero/Archive! There is only confirmation of multiple accounts of which none have been used as sockpuppets, ... learn what a sockpuppet is/WP:SOCK and do not answer these requests until you have read that page, thankyou. I am re-adding this page until an admin actually reads it.". El Machete Guerrero

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am permitted to own multiple accounts ''"owning multiple accounts is permitted on the English Misplaced Pages"'' and me doing so has not been disruptive other than the edit war I had with a '''blocked''' editor using multiple IPs to game the system, evade his block and abusively use his multiple accounts. Had I done the same as him it would be considered abuse and sockpuppetry, but '''I did not''' and I have not broken any policy except 3RR. So a further block is both inappropriate and unecessary. You are welcome to look at my contributions, all I have done to wikipedia is improve it in my time as a wikipedian. Take a look at these pages so you can understand me, ], ], ]. None of the accounts are sockpuppets and all of them are legitimate and concentrate on a particular area of wikipedia. In addition the check user was requested by fishing and not for legitimate reasons other than the fact I was in a debate with the user whom requested it. The code letter was F because he did not have a legitimate reason and he provided no diffs or evidence whatsoever. He infact acused me of being El Perso the original and an IP and gave the reason good hand/bad hand but provided no evidence whatsoever. Then when the results came back he conceded to the fact that the multiple accounts were '''not''' sockpuppets on the AN/I page we argued on. Even though I most likely peeved him off with my hard words and our interactions with each other. And he knew he was wrong and had done the wrong thing and I was not aware of him fishing until he blocked me. You can see this . So I am asking to have this ridiculous block lifted and allow me to get back to improving wikipedia as I have been as I was very patient waiting the three days for the block George put on me to expire only to find this ridiculous , no reason, no evidence block put ont me by Nixeagle. Cheers, El Machete Guerrero. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am permitted to own multiple accounts ''"owning multiple accounts is permitted on the English Misplaced Pages"'' and me doing so has not been disruptive other than the edit war I had with a '''blocked''' editor using multiple IPs to game the system, evade his block and abusively use his multiple accounts. Had I done the same as him it would be considered abuse and sockpuppetry, but '''I did not''' and I have not broken any policy except 3RR. So a further block is both inappropriate and unecessary. You are welcome to look at my contributions, all I have done to wikipedia is improve it in my time as a wikipedian. Take a look at these pages so you can understand me, ], ], ]. None of the accounts are sockpuppets and all of them are legitimate and concentrate on a particular area of wikipedia. In addition the check user was requested by fishing and not for legitimate reasons other than the fact I was in a debate with the user whom requested it. The code letter was F because he did not have a legitimate reason and he provided no diffs or evidence whatsoever. He infact acused me of being El Perso the original and an IP and gave the reason good hand/bad hand but provided no evidence whatsoever. Then when the results came back he conceded to the fact that the multiple accounts were '''not''' sockpuppets on the AN/I page we argued on. Even though I most likely peeved him off with my hard words and our interactions with each other. And he knew he was wrong and had done the wrong thing and I was not aware of him fishing until he blocked me. You can see this . So I am asking to have this ridiculous block lifted and allow me to get back to improving wikipedia as I have been as I was very patient waiting the three days for the block George put on me to expire only to find this ridiculous , no reason, no evidence block put ont me by Nixeagle. Cheers, El Machete Guerrero. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am permitted to own multiple accounts ''"owning multiple accounts is permitted on the English Misplaced Pages"'' and me doing so has not been disruptive other than the edit war I had with a '''blocked''' editor using multiple IPs to game the system, evade his block and abusively use his multiple accounts. Had I done the same as him it would be considered abuse and sockpuppetry, but '''I did not''' and I have not broken any policy except 3RR. So a further block is both inappropriate and unecessary. You are welcome to look at my contributions, all I have done to wikipedia is improve it in my time as a wikipedian. Take a look at these pages so you can understand me, ], ], ]. None of the accounts are sockpuppets and all of them are legitimate and concentrate on a particular area of wikipedia. In addition the check user was requested by fishing and not for legitimate reasons other than the fact I was in a debate with the user whom requested it. The code letter was F because he did not have a legitimate reason and he provided no diffs or evidence whatsoever. He infact acused me of being El Perso the original and an IP and gave the reason good hand/bad hand but provided no evidence whatsoever. Then when the results came back he conceded to the fact that the multiple accounts were '''not''' sockpuppets on the AN/I page we argued on. Even though I most likely peeved him off with my hard words and our interactions with each other. And he knew he was wrong and had done the wrong thing and I was not aware of him fishing until he blocked me. You can see this . So I am asking to have this ridiculous block lifted and allow me to get back to improving wikipedia as I have been as I was very patient waiting the three days for the block George put on me to expire only to find this ridiculous , no reason, no evidence block put ont me by Nixeagle. Cheers, El Machete Guerrero. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Jéské Couriano

What a complete and utter joke! Not once but twice this admin has broken policy and put a ridiculous uncalled for protection on my talkpage giving me no way to plead my case. And not once but twice has he used the ridiculous, completely false reason of "Protected User talk:El Machete Guerrero: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked ( (expires 05:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)))" when I have in no way been using my talkpage for inappropriate editing and the only thing I have used it for is my unblock requests. What makes this whole thing even more ridiculous is that the only editor using sockpuppets being the IP is already off his block and has already started editing when he undoubtly gamed the system, was a sockpuppeteer abusing multiple IP accounts to evade a block and used his socks to continue in an edit war! This is an abomination and me the established good editor who has done nothing other than improve wikipedia in my time editing has been indefinately blocked effectively banning me and an IP who has broken multiple policies on multiple occasions (others had trouble with him before me, just check his talkpage history which he always blanks) has gotten off scott free with nothing but a slap on the wrist! This in no way in no circumstance can be considered right and I still cannot fathom how admins can commit this gross abuse of their editing privleges and no one even cares! How is this in any way fair?! And how does this in anyway keep in the spirit of wikipedia?! An editor only need to look at my contributions to see I am a valuable contributor to this project and that banning me would not help the community in any way! I have had enough of this nonsense and I insist an admin actually read my unblock request and then give me diffs and evidence on why they should or should not unblock me as it is their duty being an admin! Now don't get me wrong I am in no way attacking admins on a whole as I am sure there are deserving admins who are actually fair and don't abuse their power and if I did not believe this I would not even bother requesting an unblock as I would know it is a complete waste of time. But I am quite sure that if OhNoitsJamie sees this request once more he will make sure he comes here to shut me up and remove the comments before anyone can see it and use the same invalid reason! That's why I beg another admin intervene and let me have my freedom of speech and actually plead my case and defend myself. Please, El Machete Guerrero.

Jéské Couriano's response to all my points above in my unblock request

1. I am permitted to own multiple accounts "owning multiple accounts is permitted on the English Misplaced Pages" and me doing so has not been disruptive other than the edit war I had with a blocked editor using multiple IPs to game the system, evade his block and abusively use his multiple accounts. Creating multiple accounts (known as sockpuppets) to further an edit war in an attempt to evade or prevent sanctions on your main account is indeed expressly forbidden.

1. Learn what a sockpuppet is Jeremy as multiple accounts aren't considered socks unless they meet a certain criteria which you would know had you read up on wikipedia policies. And I guess it is good that I did not create multiple accounts to further an edit war in an attempt to evade or prevent sanctions!

1. I did not and I have not broken any policy except 3RR. Wrong; you've provably violated WP:Sock puppetry, WP:Tendentious editing (The edit-war at Reggaeton), and WP:No personal attacks (The AN/I thread as well.

1. No right! You are wrong! I have not "probably" violated any other policy. Probably does not cut it in a ban Jeremy, either provide diffs or it is an attack on me!

1. You are welcome to look at my contributions, all I have done to wikipedia is improve it in my time as a wikipedian. Explain the edit-war that got you blocked initially, then - you were, cut-and-dried, edit-warring, which doesn't help Misplaced Pages at all. Even if the other user was blocked, that is no excuse to revert to an apparently-vandalized version, which indicates blind-reverting and thus edit-warring. Anons have as much right to edit Misplaced Pages as registered accounts.

1. I did explain myself and my actions a number of times on talkpages and the AN/I for Reggaeton, you know this! I also explained that I thought the reference was corrected which is why I kept it and infact the IP was the one making the blind reverts and not myself, you also know this! It's all on the AN/I page, but of course once again you are very well aware of this! I'm just making sure other admins don't buy into the deceit.

1. Take a look at these pages so you can understand me, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance, WP:SOCK, WP:MULTIPLE. All three pages condemn your behavior - Circumventing Misplaced Pages policies such as multiple article reversions, edit-warring, collusion, evasion, disruption, or other misuse (SPI/Guidance); Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as the "three-revert rule" are for each person's edits. (WP:Sock puppetry#Circumventing policy); Using multiple accounts to give the appearance of popularity to an idea, to avoid scrutiny, or to avoid a block or ban on another account are considered major abuses and are not tolerated on Misplaced Pages. (WP:Username policy#Using multiple accounts).

1. All three pages do not condemn my behaviour! I did not do anything stated in those quotes and this is supported by your complete lack of diffs! So once again another attack on me by you an admin!

1. None of the accounts are sockpuppets and all of them are legitimate and concentrate on a particular area of wikipedia. Per WP:Username policy#Using multiple accounts and the Checkuser findings, this isn't so. Also, you were evading a block with this account.

1. Per WP:Username policy#Using multiple accounts and the Checkuser findings, this is so! Do not use policies to say something they do not! Also, I was not evading a block as I did not edit anywhere in wikipedia except my talkpage, and I was given no choice because admins like you gave me no way of defending myself and letting me plead my case!

1. In addition the check user was requested by fishing and not for legitimate reasons other than the fact I was in a debate with the user whom requested it. The code letter was F because he did not have a legitimate reason and he provided no diffs or evidence whatsoever. The case letter being F just means that the reason for the check is not ban evasion, serious pattern vandalism, vote fraud, or 3RR violation via sockpuppets. That doesn't make the check illegitimate, and the requester linked to the AN/I thread, where the diffs were, so that he didn't have to spend ages compiling diffs. Second, checkuser is a very privacy-invasive tool, and thus checkusers are obligated to not use it unless there is a compelling reason to. As one of the templates says: Checkuser is not for fishing.

1. There were no diffs! Where were the links that connected me to El Perso and the IP?! They were no where! It was fishing and is most likely the reason he conceded to me not using multiple accounts abusively out of guilt.

1. He infact acused me of being El Perso the original and an IP and gave the reason good hand/bad hand but provided no evidence whatsoever. Reggaeton's history had suggested it, since he stopped editing the article about the same time you started.

1. That did not suggest a thing! Just because someone stops editing an article and then someone else starts editing it does not mean they are the same person. There were absolutely no grounds for a checkuser and the admin who did the check failed to respect the rules of a checkuser and my privacy as an editor.

1. Then when the results came back he conceded to the fact that the multiple accounts were not sockpuppets on the AN/I page we argued on. Quoth the SPI findings: These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny. Trying to evade scrutiny with sockpuppets is expressly forbidden.

1. I provided the diff here so there is no way you can try and say this is a lie unless you lie. This quote "These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny" is completely unfounded and was probably made by the checkuser admin as a thin veil for doing a checkuser from another admin who was in a debate with me just fishing and did not provide any diffs! I already addressed this in my comment towards Nixeagle who was the one who effectively banned me "They all focus on different areas of wikipedia and different article spaces and are in no way used to avoid scrutiny and their edits combined would not be considered improper if done by a single account!".

1. So I am asking to have this ridiculous block lifted and allow me to get back to improving wikipedia as I have been as I was very patient waiting the three days for the block George put on me to expire only to find this ridiculous , no reason, no evidence block put ont me by Nixeagle. Cheers, El Machete Guerrero. I'll say this yet again: Checkuser-confirmed blocks are never overturned because the accounts involved are proved as coming from the same IP. -Jeremy 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

1. They have to be as this was not an abuse of multiple accounts and in no way or form can be considered sockpuppetry as conceded to even by an admin who does not like me! [George

We already have. It's not my fault you see "Confirmed" at the Sockpuppet Investigations case page and read it the opposite way if disruption's involved. I recommend you pipe down - you're heading the right way for a community ban. -Jeremy 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No you have not! That does not confirm sockpuppets and only confirms multiple accounts under the one IP! Do not assert false information! I will now emphasise and highlight the fact that I proved each one of your broken down points wrong and the fact that you still have not provided any diffs whatsoever for your attacks on me and continue to break wikipedia policy as an editor. Of course this will not matter to you as most admins I have dealt with do what ever they want and do not even follow policy and only follow their emotions. So you will come here delete all my comments proving you wrong and proving I have been treated like crap, then you will give false edit summaries when doing this. Summaries that will make it seem like you are doing good instead of bad. Then Jamie will come here protect this page so I have no way of defending myself once you decide to attack me once more and go about his day without a care in the world. All the while doing a great diservice to the reputation of wikipedia as a whole and not allowing me to improve wikipedia in areas I am knowledgeable. But if anyone decides to read the history they will just see the great injustice and it will say more about you than me. I would reason with you, but reasoning only works when one person does not hold a grudge. So I'm not sure how effective that would be. Someone unprotect my talkpage on El Machete Guerrero so I do not have to keep on using other means to communicate. El Machete Guerrero

OhNoitsJamie

What a complete and utter joke! Not once but twice this admin has broken policy and put a ridiculous uncalled for protection on my talkpage giving me no way to plead my case. And not once but twice has he used the ridiculous, completely false reason of "Protected User talk:El Machete Guerrero: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked ( (expires 05:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)))" when I have in no way been using my talkpage for inappropriate editing and the only thing I have used it for is my unblock requests. What makes this whole thing even more ridiculous is that the only editor using sockpuppets being the IP is already off his block and has already started editing when he undoubtly gamed the system, was a sockpuppeteer abusing multiple IP accounts to evade a block and used his socks to continue in an edit war! This is an abomination and me the established good editor who has done nothing other than improve wikipedia in my time editing has been indefinately blocked effectively banning me and an IP who has broken multiple policies on multiple occasions (others had trouble with him before me, just check his talkpage history which he always blanks) has gotten off scott free with nothing but a slap on the wrist! This in no way in no circumstance can be considered right and I still cannot fathom how admins can commit this gross abuse of their editing privleges and no one even cares! How is this in any way fair?! And how does this in anyway keep in the spirit of wikipedia?! An editor only need to look at my contributions to see I am a valuable contributor to this project and that banning me would not help the community in any way! I have had enough of this nonsense and I insist an admin actually read my unblock request and then give me diffs and evidence on why they should or should not unblock me as it is their duty being an admin! Now don't get me wrong I am in no way attacking admins on a whole as I am sure there are deserving admins who are actually fair and don't abuse their power and if I did not believe this I would not even bother requesting an unblock as I would know it is a complete waste of time. But I am quite sure that if OhNoitsJamie sees this request once more he will make sure he comes here to shut me up and remove the comments before anyone can see it and use the same invalid reason! That's why I beg another admin intervene and let me have my freedom of speech and actually plead my case and defend myself. Please, El Machete Guerrero.

Disapointing how you can persistently abuse your powers and not even have the slightest bit of guilt in doing so. Almost seems as if you enjoy it. Disapointing. I would be ashamed but I guess we are completely different people. El Machete Guerrero

• Requests for unblock