User talk:PM ME UR FITS

March 2015
{{unblock reviewed | 1=The sockpuppet policy is in place to prevent disruptive edits. This block does not comport that policy. Neither do "I think, therefore I ban", nor "better sorry than safe" comport with Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy. Please describe a way in which it would have been possible to bring up the issue from the message that I left Codename Lisa, and to do so in a way different the one I chose and to which the response was the block we are now discussing. PM ME UR FITS (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC) | decline = We don't need a Wikipedia-Constitutionally-sound version of (WP:NOTHERE or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY} to block WP:DUCK accounts. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)}}

You could have brought the issue up at WP:ANI. As the message from Codename Lisa is a perfectly friendly standard template message, however, I am not sure how you would have phrased your objection. In my opinion this block is valid.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you look at the edit that Codename Lisa responded to with Template:Uw-vandalism1? Template:Uw-vandalism1 does go to great lengths—erring probably even more than it needs to—to be friendly and assume good faith wrt to edits that are for one reason or another "unconstructive" (read: vandalism).  Template:Uw-vandalism1 is not, however, an appropriate response to non-vandalism.  The point at which it's used as a response to non-vandalism is the point at which its use becomes uncivil.  In the greater picture, this is part of the aforementioned pattern of rudeness I referred to in my first unblock request, where the pattern is for User:Codename Lisa to make several edits to effect some change (usually a revert), and embed in one of those edits a snipy edit summary and/or what happened in this case: misuse of an unrelated standard template response that constitutes a disproportionately aggressive message for the topic at hand.


 * "In my opinion this block is valid."


 * On what basis? For all you and I have said about the appropriateness of User:Codename Lisa's original message, it's besides the point: the scope of this discussion is concerning the block wrt whether or not I'm a sockpuppet for User:Evilprincewiki.  Even if you feel that User:Codename Lisa's message wasn't used in (let's say, to be generous) "poor judgement", that's immaterial to whether this block is justified, the rationale for which I remind you again is a (too-hasty) suspicion that I must be the same person behind the account that made the edits in the example I linked to in my message to User:Codename Lisa.


 * At this moment, we have User:Bbb23, who instituted the block, and another user discussing on User:Codename Lisa's talk page whether I am maybe, in fact, instead a sockpuppet for some other person—a person who is a) also not me; and b) obviously a non-native English speaker and can be triviably observed to write in no resemblance to my style (see User:FleetCommand's comment).


 * Given the above, with User:Bbb23 writing "I don't know anything" (emphasis in original comment), along with the fact that the single message I sent was non-disruptive, and so therefore the block would not be in accordance with policy, and the fact that policy also wasn't followed for actually putting the block in place (see Sock_puppetry), the block is without justification and should be removed. I repeat again, whatever your opinions on User:Codename Lisa's edit that I pointed out, it has no bearing on the veracity of the claim for the block. PM ME UR FITS (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll respond first to your quote of my comment above. I blocked you as a suspected puppet, which means that I don't know if the Evilwikiprince account and this account belong to the same person. If I knew, I wouldn't use the word "suspected". We don't have to know conclusively that someone is a sock of another account to block them. I am an WP:SPI clerk in addition to being an administrator, and I frequently block accounts based on behavior rather than technical proof. Usually, I have more edits to go on, both from the master and from the puppet accounts. In this case, I had one each. However, sometimes one edit can be more revealing than many, and in your case, no matter what you say, what you did was very unusual. That said, let's assume hypothetically that Evilwikiprince is not the master account. I have even greater trouble believing that this is the first account you've ever registered at Wikipedia. Thus, worst case, I have the wrong master but the right result. Finally, you write a bit like a lawyer, and I don't tend to engage in protracted discussions on these kinds of issues, so don't be surprised if I have no further comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a lot to respond to here. I just posted a response, but have removed it because it seems you've adopted a stance of, essentially, "no matter what you do, I'll consider that to be a damning suggestion against you and therefore a reason to think of myself as right"; I'd rather focus on resolving the block rather than addressing spurious arguments, since every word written increases the likelihood that the reply will focus on anything but the things most pertinent to the discussion. PM ME UR FITS (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Each decline warned you about the consequences of making "too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests". Yours have been both. I have therefore revoked your talk page access. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha! This is what happens when someone unaccustomed to authority in the real world gets a taste of it on the internet. Amusing but typically unhelpful. 104.156.240.163 (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)