User talk:Azure Anteater

February 2016

 * Note that while my edits were technically in violation of the banning policy, they were completely in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and none of these edits were controversial or disruptive. But thank you for playing internet court. I'm flattered and disgusted that you still care. IT'S BEEN SIX FUCKING YEARS YOU TWATS. --Azure Anteater (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

.

No, but seriously, this isn't what you would call a genuine unblock request; the arbitration committee would have your head if you tried. I just wanted to take a moment of your time to vent. I am, as is fairly obvious, banned user Blu Aardvark. I was banned by the arbitration committee for a period of 1 year approximately 8 years ago. For a while, I spent a lot of time on disruptive behavior. I did it for the lulz. And then I found better things to do with my time and left the Wikipedia community to their circlejerk. A few years ago, I was procrastinating on a writing assignment and decided to create this account, and I edited constructively, although sparsely, for a couple of years. This last week I sent an email to the arbitration committee requesting a review of this ban. The answer I received was tantamount to "fuck you buddy", as is evidenced by the fact that the worthless cunt GorillaWarfare blocked this account because that action was an important use of her time. But I digress.

I am flattered and disgusted that the bureaucracy here actually still gives a fuck. --Azure Anteater (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Evidences
This was was the message I sent to the arbitration committee requesting a ban review: I am banned user Blu Aardvark. I have, historically, engaged in a long pattern of trolling behavior and vandalism and was, as a result, banned by the Arbitration Committee and by the community. However, I have not engaged in any such behavior for at least 4 years. I would like to have my ban reviewed so that I can integrate back into the community, or, barring that, so that I can edit from a new account without violating the ban policy. In the interest of full disclosure, I have recently edited Wikipedia under the username Azure Anteater. This a self-identified alternate account with over 100 standing edits (possibly a few deleted edits), all of them non-controversial. If you are not willing to review my ban at this time, I am disappointed, but I understand. In this scenario, however, I would like to request that my sockpuppet categories be emptied and removed. I do not feel that these pages serve to the betterment of the Wikipedia project, nor do they serve to identify any problematic behavior problems, but they do contain personally identifiable information.

This was the response I received:

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your appeal. Given your past history of extreme disruption and abuse on this project, as well as your continued sockpuppetry, we will not be granting your unban request.

When contacting this committee or responding to any of our messages, please ensure that arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org is in the "to" or "cc" field of any reply you make to this message. Messages sent only to me or another individual arbitrator may not be read.

For the Arbitration Committee, Molly (GorillaWarfare)

This was an additional request I sent:

It is unfortunate that you have come to this consensus, as I feel that I have been making positive contributions to the project, clearly recognizable from my contributions.

Regardless, however, I understand why some would be reluctant to accept me back, and therefore I will not petition again.

What of the additional portion of my request, however? If I am not free to contribute to your project, I would like to exercise my right to disappear from it. Please vacate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Blu_Aardvark and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Blu_Aardvark. These pages no longer serve any purpose but to harass me as an individual. I have long ago ceased engaging in disruptive behavior. You yourselves bear witness to this.

This is the response I recieved: