Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:30, 13 March 2009

This user is banned from editing the English Misplaced Pages. Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking. (block log · contributions)

I resign. No hard feelings with anyone, from my end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbarocks (talk • contribs)

It's bad form to "resign" to avoid sanction for bad behavior, and then go back to messing up articles and being disruptive. THF (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Since he's back and editing within the same set of articles, I think we need to resume the sanction process. Rklawton (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's clarify: have you resigned, Abbarocks, or haven't you? Your contributions since returning have been two mainspace edits that were unsourced and redundant with language already in the article, and a trolling comment on a talk-page, so you certainly haven't given any signs of improving the behavior that was about to get you banned. THF (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you both will see a marked improvement in my tone and although it may be hard given the past encounters, if you could AGF I think you'll find I have a lot to contribute to these articles. I plan to expand my editing into areas where you likely won't be involved but I felt compelled to try to get the new editor from being discouraged and pushed away from the Skull and Bones article by THF's somewhat,imo, unfriendly edit toward that new (to the article) Edotior. Abbarocks (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor wasn't new to the article, and had already been blocked once for disruption. THF (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed ban

I have proposed banning you from editing Misplaced Pages here: AN/I. You may take up the discussion there if you wish. Rklawton (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lies and Censorship

Unlike some of you who seem to be on the job right here, I just got back from REAL work and never had the chance to defend myself. The accusation by THF that I am 206109195126 (the one THF says was Blocked: I was never blocked) above is just one of many falsehoods and I'd like a checkuser used to show up that accusation as a lie. This encyclopedia has been hijacked by control freaks, that's for sure, even this talk page discussion was removed. Abbarocks (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you'll check out the AN/I page, you'll see that a dozen admins agreed that your edits warranted your banning from this project. I don't think any of them referenced anything other than the detrimental quality of your edits. Rklawton (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's likely some if not all of them were diligent enough to have seen THF's accusation above and accepted it as being true and whether they mentioned it or not it likely influenced them. It's like if evidence in a trial is false, like the fingerprints for example, and the Jurors are asked after why they found the person guilty and none mention the false fingerprint identification, you really don't know how it would have been if the false evidence had not been submitted as if it were 100% factual. Abbarocks (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction, fourteen administrators - counting the one who closed the issue. And most of them referenced reviewing your edits. None of them referenced THF (except, I presume, THF). Rklawton (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

8 administrators, not 14 among 15.--Caspian blue 03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rklawton, you're being trolled. Any administrator who read the above exchange would have had the reading comprehension to recognize that I was referring to the "new" editor who Abbarocks accused me of being "unfriendly" to. And I'm sure Abbarocks has the same reading comprehension and is just playing dumb now to waste more people's time. And if he doesn't have that level of reading comprehension, then we're definitely not losing anything by banning him.

Abba, your edits were indefensible, and I warned you about that repeatedly, and instead you took Ikip's advice and picked fights. This is the consequence. THF (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The "new editor" was Sicluceatlux , your reference to a block was for an anon-206109195126. Are those 2 the same person? How would you know? Do you have access to the Checkuser tool? Also, since Rklawton read your ambiguous comment the same way I did, it's likely some of those admins did too. Abbarocks (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He said it was the same person. THF (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did he say that? Abbarocks (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

On the only talk-page either account has ever edited. I sat through it all, and you can, too, if you don't believe me for some reason. THF (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sicluceatlux's first edit was yesterday. Why do you assume he is that anon? Abbarocks (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. I answered that same question at 03:05. THF (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This shows that the anon edited lots of other articles and talk pages? Why are you saying he only edited the 1 article? And why are you deflecting my question as to how youn know they are the same person? I don't see where Sicluceatlux, who just started yesterday, told everyone that he used to be that anon. Abbarocks (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read them - at all. Rklawton (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see upon rereading THF's edit that he did not accuse me of being the one who was blocked at least. Abbarocks (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)