User talk:Miesbu/archives

RE:User:John Reaves
I had the same question as you did about the above, but if you look in his contribs he was the one who blocked himself, and then unblocked himself. Looks like just a mistake. Thought I would let you know! Good luck editing. Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Onorem♠Dil 16:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood.
The socks I referred to included CBOrgatrope and miscellaneous others, not to you. I would, however, always prefer people to use one account; however, you appear not to be misusing them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
Per the duck test. If you can prove your original account is not currently blocked or banned then you may be able to persuade someone to unblock you. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The editor's most obvious other account is not banned. However, checking through this editor's contributions, I don't see much positive being done.  I am increasingly disapproving of this recent trend of editors creating second accounts to be argumentative with.  I am therefore not going to unblock.  Note that I am not warranting that this user is not a reincarnation of a blocked/banned user - simply that they have another account that is not currently banned and I haven't done the research far enough for anything else. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the intent of that exception was to allow users to edit on controversial topics (e.g. abortion) without fear of their views on such being associated with their main account (possibly leading to online or RL problems). A case can certainly be made for including 'meta topics' in that exception... debates about Wikipedia procedures can be just as heated and just as likely to inspire grudges, but there is a point at which it seems more like a shield against consequences for incivil behavior. This account seemed to start out right at that point and go downhill fast from there. I came to this page because I was considering blocking temporarily based on that behavior alone. Since they apparently aren't connected with any known banned accounts an unblock, as Guy said above, might be appropriate... but not just yet and IMO not without an understanding that the sock-puppet exception isn't intended to allow alternate accounts to be deliberately confrontational and/or disruptive. Only to shield civil and reasonable contributions from retaliation based solely on opposition to the topic they cover. --CBD 12:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for making other people mad. As CBD says, debates about Wikipedia procedures can be heated.  I would eventually like to be unblocked but for now it's not a priority because this user account is for discussion and I mainly make mainspace edits.  I don't agree with the statement that I don't do anything positive.  I created a nice article on a historic figure and, after very polite and civil discussion with another user, merged that article with another one.  Again, sorry that some people are mad. Miesbu 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)