User talk:Mitantiongrey

tapas

Elockid's reverts of edits by User:シ シ シ
Hi. The user has been identified as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user. Per BAN, any edits by a sock of a banned (or indefinitely blocked) user may be reverted on sight. — Rich wales 08:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What is going on here gentlemen? Who blocked my account and for what? who is this guy you're blaming me for? I have no idea who that Georgian guy was, i just reverted the edits on some of the articles i found contributing from that smiley guy. And there was some kind of edit war going on in one of the articles templates so i just reverted it. Ban him or whatever you want to but I am totally outraged with that sign and block on my page. Jeez. --Mitantiongrey (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

ridiculous blocking

 * The checkuser result (Possible) coupled with behavioral evidence means you will not be unblocked. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 22:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In particular, your reversion here restored vandal edits by a sockpuppet シ シ シ, suggesting you are associated with that other account. Not only did you restore vandalism, but you did so by reverting the attempt of a checkuser administrator to clean it up. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I retract the bit about vandalism. Upon further inspection, it appears that edit was constructive.
 * I admit I also have mixed feelings about this block. I have always disagreed with the notion that good contributions should be blanked simply because of who made the edit. A constructive contribution is a constructive contribution no matter who makes it. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Assuming people are confident that Mitantiongrey really is a sock of GeorgianJorjadze (and not simply another person who happens to have similar interests and beliefs), the Sock policy is quite clear that the account should be indefinitely blocked. As for reverting, the Banning policy says that banned editors are not to make any edits on the site, and that any good they might do is outweighed by the risks of "disruption, issues, or harm".  While the assumption is that any edit by a banned editor doesn't belong and should be reverted on sight, the banning policy does envision some situations where this might not be appropriate, and it says that "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content".  —  Rich wales 18:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Amatulic for your understanding. I hope the administrators will find the truth and unblock me. Regards. --Mitantiongrey (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not that guy you're blaming me for. Jesus!

 * You cannot say that Elockid made a mistake: any user who simply shows up brand new and starts to re-insert the edits of a banned/blocked user certainly draws attention in a negative manner, and rightly so. This is not just a WP:DUCK block, I can guarantee that your belief that "some of his or her edits" were most definitely not really contributing.  New users should not simply start re-inserting material, but should discuss changes on the article talkpage in order to ensure they're not violating recent WP:CONSENSUS.  I do not find that the above unblock addresses these concerns, and shouting "I'm not a sock" might simply be a red-herring.  Of course, the "methinks thou do'est protest too much" and the inappropriate phrasing of the header in this section alone makes me think WP:NOTHERE  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Elockid is a very experienced admin, so sinply stating that he has made a mistake does not work; you need to explain how this has happened. If you choose to do so, please also explain how it is that, having created an account on October 25 you are able, in less than an hour, to both create a quite detailed template with multiple photographs on it, and also, as your first article edit, delete a large chunk of text from an article in which you clearly have an abiding interest. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)