User talk:Magnonimous
Blocked
[edit]
Block extended
[edit]Based on the results of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous, which demonstrate abusive sockpuppeteering, vote-stacking, and obvious bad-faith, combined with your problematic approach and lack of positive contributions, the block on this account has been extended to indefinite. You may request an unblock by posting the {{unblock}} template, or by following the steps listed here. MastCell Talk 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Magnonimous (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It's been two years and the indefinite time is unwarranted
Decline reason:
Indefinite blocks are standard for sockpuppetry, particularly when done to vote-stack on AfD's. This request does not address the reason for the block, and is declined. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:50, 8 July 2011 (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.
Hello
[edit]
Magnonimous (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reason 1:
Significant period of time, as mentioned in the appeal article, has gone by during which I made no edits.
"If you actually are guilty of sockpuppetry, and want to get a second chance at editing, please do as follows: Refrain from making any edits, using any account or anonymously, for a significant period of time."
Request was made by the original account.
"Make the unblock request from your original account."
Reason 2:
Though it claims that I vote stacked on AfDs, this was not the case. I only ever used my main account on an AfD.
Reason 3:
I did use an alternative account in a manner that could be perceived as sockpuppetry, however I did not use it with the intent of subverting consensus. I honestly intended to help someone who clearly could not maintain objectivity. I made a convincing argument but user:Ronz had made up his mind even before I started editing; then someone (ie. me) challenged his belief that coral calcium claims were hogwash, and when he didn't appreciate the manner in which I did this, we started arguing.
I tried to explain to him that even if my point of view was wrong, that the article needed to explore both his and my point of view in order to be balanced. I did some childish things when I felt that my efforts were futile, but none of them rose to an exceptionally destructive level.
I did what I did because I believed that my reasoning was solid but his anger towards me clouded his ability to remain impartial, And I thought it would mean more coming from another person. I realize now that it was a hugely misguided decision and I will not do it again. I promise you that.
Accept reason:
After three and a half years, and your assurances that you won't repeat the same mistakes, I am willing to give you another chance. However, this is on the understanding that any further disruptive or unconstructive editing may lead to an immediate restoration of the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Of all the socks labelled "confirmed" or "suspected", I notice that none of them made edits after December 2007. Unless any administrators forgot to tag any accounts, it might be worth a try. Of course, unblocks may require a lot of caution. mechamind90 03:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be for giving the user a second chance. However, if the same stuff happens as before, then that's it. –MuZemike 16:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)