| Revision as of 23:14, 11 November 2007 edit24.19.33.82 (talk) →Your block← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:20, 11 November 2007 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits WP:BLP again.Next edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| ::::::If they're complicated enough to have a nature and include details, such details are almost certainly wrong. Jehochman's suggestion that ] indicates the level of reliability which may be ascribed to his on-wiki statements; how much less can we ascribe to those hidden from scrutiny.] 08:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | ::::::If they're complicated enough to have a nature and include details, such details are almost certainly wrong. Jehochman's suggestion that ] indicates the level of reliability which may be ascribed to his on-wiki statements; how much less can we ascribe to those hidden from scrutiny.] 08:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::As I said, I care nothing for the intimate details, and have no opinions on the merits of the block, the unblock, or anything further that happens from there (I do not understand the situation enough to have an opinion or a vested interest). My action was merely 'doing the business' that Rlevse initiated above. I have absolutely no intention of being a party to any dispute involving you, Jehochman, El C ''et al''. ''']''' 08:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | :::::::As I said, I care nothing for the intimate details, and have no opinions on the merits of the block, the unblock, or anything further that happens from there (I do not understand the situation enough to have an opinion or a vested interest). My action was merely 'doing the business' that Rlevse initiated above. I have absolutely no intention of being a party to any dispute involving you, Jehochman, El C ''et al''. ''']''' 08:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Your block== | |||
| Mr. Hochman, I'd be curious to hear why you chose to block me as an "abusive sockpuppet" without leaving a message on my talk page, or making any attempt to communicate with me.] 06:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Because you were posting ]. Don't do it any more, and you will be fine. This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. - ] <sup>]</sup> 06:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm aware that this is not a chat room. As a consultant with what looks to be money riding on your participation in this endeavor, you might find it interesting to know that, according to Wikimedia Foundation's legal team, WP is not an encyclopedia, which, after all, would be a publication, but an "interactive service provider." | |||
| ::Re my comments, not every comment containing unpopular observations is "flamebait." It's well-known that several of the participants to the conversation are sockpuppeteers or even sockpuppets, and I think it quite valid to observe that the goal underlying the reformulation is to figure out a way for popular administrators to retain their puppeting rights while tightening the rules for others. As a courtesy, I've refrained from naming the puppets or their puppetmasters and will continue to do so, so long as I'm treated with some modicum of courtesy and respect in return. Thank you for your consideration.] 07:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Email me if you would like a more complete explanation. Thank you. - ] <sup>]</sup> 08:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Now I'm some guy named Greg with whom you play "cat and mouse?"] 12:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:20, 11 November 2007
 Y
|
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Request handled by: — Rlevse • Talk • 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC) |
- You were editing in order to elicit a negative response. Many people would consiter that to be trolling. It's not helpfull to the on-going process of improving the encyclopedia. Please don't do it any more... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- It wasn't my intention to elicit a negative response, but to wryly observe: The reason why participants are having a difficult time with the wording is because they're trying to find a policy which allows their own socks, and those of their friends, while disallowing socks of those they dislike. Some of the participants are themselves sockpuppets. The red lines that are being proposed, such as participating in mainspace, but not project discussions, are just random tangential facts which are being reified as a substitute for what is actually desired: a trusted (by itself) in-group which can use socks freely, and an out-group which can't. The fact that this observation was removed and led to a block only supports this interpretation. Posting under an IP is not "abusive sockpuppetry" when there is no active usernamed account or evasion involved. To suggest that administrators should stop trying to rig the system and follow what they ask of others - or stop asking it - shouldn't be controversial.24.19.33.82 23:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
{{unblock|Thanks, Rlevse, for granting my unblock request. However, I'm still blocked.}}
- Fixed now? Daniel 05:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Thanks,Daniel.24.19.33.82 06:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- For the record (because I have gotten queries about it): I have no opinion on the block or the unblock, or any reblocking that could/may/whatever happen (ie. if you want to reblock this account, don't come to me, but rather Rlevse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)). I only unblocked it because an administrator granted the unblock request - see diff - but forgot to technically unblock the IP (a fact I noted in the block log). Daniel 08:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that. I don't see any queries on your talk page, however. Can you point me to them, so I can weigh in on my own behalf?24.19.33.82 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, because they are confidential in nature and detail. Daniel 08:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- If they're complicated enough to have a nature and include details, such details are almost certainly wrong. Jehochman's suggestion that I'm a sockpuppet of the respected administrator El C indicates the level of reliability which may be ascribed to his on-wiki statements; how much less can we ascribe to those hidden from scrutiny.24.19.33.82 08:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, I care nothing for the intimate details, and have no opinions on the merits of the block, the unblock, or anything further that happens from there (I do not understand the situation enough to have an opinion or a vested interest). My action was merely 'doing the business' that Rlevse initiated above. I have absolutely no intention of being a party to any dispute involving you, Jehochman, El C et al. Daniel 08:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- If they're complicated enough to have a nature and include details, such details are almost certainly wrong. Jehochman's suggestion that I'm a sockpuppet of the respected administrator El C indicates the level of reliability which may be ascribed to his on-wiki statements; how much less can we ascribe to those hidden from scrutiny.24.19.33.82 08:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, because they are confidential in nature and detail. Daniel 08:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that. I don't see any queries on your talk page, however. Can you point me to them, so I can weigh in on my own behalf?24.19.33.82 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- For the record (because I have gotten queries about it): I have no opinion on the block or the unblock, or any reblocking that could/may/whatever happen (ie. if you want to reblock this account, don't come to me, but rather Rlevse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)). I only unblocked it because an administrator granted the unblock request - see diff - but forgot to technically unblock the IP (a fact I noted in the block log). Daniel 08:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Thanks,Daniel.24.19.33.82 06:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)