Banana Clock

If you want to be unblocked, you may appeal to WP:BASC. If you want to continue your baiting, harassment, and other nonsense, do it on some other website. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

== July 2013 == You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for blatant WP:SOCKing. As an incognito user who plainly has edited under another identity at some point I assume you are familiar with WP:DUCK. Your quacking was rather hard to miss.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC) I'm familiar enough with WP:DUCK and WP:SOCK to know that what you just wrote is a bunch of baloney. First off, there's obviously no 'duck' involved here at all otherwise you would have named the other account who you think I unambiguously resemble in order to invoke it. Second, WP:SOCK is pretty clear that you are not entitled to make the jump from 'seems familiar with Wikipedia' to 'abusing multiple accounts - indef block' without offering up any other evidence at all. Yet there is no such evidence, just an irrelevant reference to WP:DUCK. This is just one massive punt on Beeblebrox's part. All the more amazing when you think how Eric escaped a WP:SOCK charge even though he was caught red-handed editing the same topics in the same style from the same IP while his "real account" was blocked, and when challenged would only offer the WP:ROOMMATE excuse, which was itself roundly questioned. But I will not be made to beg to have obvious errors like this rectified, on that I stand in complete agreement with Eric. Unlike Eric though, and contrary to Beeblebrox's sure fire belief, I am not an active editor here, so I will not be spending the next few weeks pretending I am totally uninterested in being unblocked, while constantly calling Beeblebrox an asshole and making vague threats of revenge editting when I return, while simultaneously claiming I will never return while Beeblebrox is stil an admin!?!?!. If my opinions about why users like Eric will remain such a massive problem for Wikipedia until certain steps are taken are so dangerous and must be silenced in this manner, even by people who acknowledge he is "the most problematic kind of user we have", then I guess they will just have to be silenced. He must think he's acheiving something with this, it's just a shame he hasn't explained that here (or anywhere else). The only thing this block achieves in the immediate term is to get Intothatdarkness off the hook regarding his claim that I was talking crap. Why preventing me being able to reply to that ridiculous charge with some inconvenient truths is seen as a particularly good thing for Wikipedia, I will never know, especially in the context of that section. He will only ever be able to wriggle free of being accountable for saying such things through blocks like this, for which he is understandably ecstatic. Which only makes it even more bizarre that the person doing the blocking here is the author of The unblockables. Just bizarre all round. Not a good day for Wikipedia, or rather the editor retention aspect of it anyway. Banana Clock (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Final point. Eric, you seem to think I'm female, so that probably means you think I am User:Mattisse? All I need to say to that is remind you that you have made this mistake before. All you are doing here is something that many controversial editors here seem to do as some sort of defense mechanism - attribute any and all criticism that is not attached to a "real" account here to that of a single former critic, now banned. Granted this has some tactical advantages, as certain less diligent admins can then be persuaded to DUCK their way through the reports and shield you from some uncomfortable moments, much like Beeblebrox did here, but I never thought you were that sort of editor to be honest (rather, you never publicly claim to be a fan of those sort of games). Anyway, no doubt you are even more convinced that I am Mattisse now, but that's the beauty of WP:SOCK, the more you deny it, the more other people think they are correct. It's a charge that can never be disproven, only not proven, as you yourself found out in your own sorry episode. Banana Clock (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC) I never mentioned Mattisse, but I think you've made the point. Eric Corbett 17:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, that was my point. Despite the fact many people hail you as intelligent, you apparently cannot conceive of a world where there are people out there who know who you are, know who Mattise is, and would make the connection based on you simply saying 'female'. Despite being arguably the single most controversial editor on Wikipedia, well worthy of studying, you still labour under the impression that any "new user" who knows who you are must be this one person. You are stuck in a paranoid hole quite frankly. QED indeed. And on the theme of a paranoia, when people claim you drive away editors, they never say "single-handedly", and they never say you do it universally, this is your own delusional twist on it, done presumably to discredit the point I made about the numerous studies that have been done that show that yes, editors like you are one of the biggest reasons why some editors leave Wikipedia. Unless you'd really like to challenge the idea that being called an asshole out of the blue without any provocation, isn't what some people would call an atmosphere of rudeness and intimidation in a survey. The people who will gladly line up at ANI and defend you based on favourable experiences are of course not going to be the same people you have demeaned, insulted and in many cases, driven off. What would help your case would be if you yourself ever had the courage to review what has ever happened to the editors who you've attacked in an unprovoked manner in the past (in the same way you did in this last episode), to see if they stuck around. Despite being apparently so against bullying, there is absolutely no doubt that you have bullied editors off this project before. I recall one incident infact when The Devil's Advocate even went to just such a user's page to ask them if they thought you had been rude to them, and whether they felt discouraged at your hands, being a relatively new user. They said yes, and asked how they should proceed, but of course, that user heard nothing more from Mr Advocate, presumably because that's not the answer he was hoping for. If you even remember who that was, maybe you should see if they're still here. Maybe you can see if they were female, given your bizarre claim that you work well with them, even though your arch nemesis is apparently female. Or maybe you don't need to bother, as Beeblebrox of all people has your back when it comes to you answering anything I've said so far in a meaningful manner. You can now just walk away as if this converstation never happened. Banana Clock (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC) No, I don't know who you are and I'm not going to bother trying to figure it out. If it makes you feel better, consider WP:HARASS as a secondary reason for this block. Now, fair warning, since you created this account for such a purpose, continuing here on your talk page is not going to be acceptable. You obviously know who I am as well, so I assume you do in fact realize that Eric and I do have some history and this has nothing to do with "getting his back." It has to do with you creating an account just to fuck with somebody. That's not ok and I'm sure you also knew that perfectly well, it defies believability to think you ever imagined you wouldn't be blocked for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC) I know exactly who you are, but that doesn't change he fact that through this block, you effectively have his back. You've offered no policy compliant explanation for this block under SOCK, so falling back on HARASS is not going to make you look any better. If you think that I am making Eric feel threatened or intimidated by simply telling the truth at a page like WP:WER, in a section created specifically by someone else to solicit opinion on the whole incident (are they harassing Eric too?), then you really are desparate. I never sought him out, I never screwed with any of the articles he's been working on today. You have absolutely no case. I was actually telling him to go away if he didn't have anything constructive to add. All politely and with understanding, even though he himself was being rude to me in his own peculiar way. And yet this to you adds up to a case of me harassing him? You literally have no case, the accusation is as empty as the invocation of DUCK. Even if you had used the proper charge, which is infact the sub-section Wikihounding, you are still hopelessly far away from making a case. It's like you've never even really read those policies. At least not recently. I created this account to contribute to that section, and you can no more prove my intent was harassment than you can prove I am a sock puppet. You're basically punting your way through this whole thing, so it really would be no surprise if the next step was you protecting this talk page, to make it all go away. Because it will, as I'm not going to be appealing this, your block, and any subsequent locking, will be the last admin actions taken on this page, rest assured. I'll not be disputing anything. I don't need to, as I'm not an editor here (even though, technically, I am officially a Wikipedian now, even right now). On a final note, don't think for one minute that just because you don't like Eric either, doesn't mean that to outside observers of Wikipedia's internal dynamics like me, you don't appear as culpable as anyone else when it comes to the issue of Eric not being held wiki-accountable for his actions in an even handed and uniform manner. If he makes a proveably false statement, as he has just done on his talk page regarding his statement that people claim he's "single-handedly responsible for chasing away" editors, then you really don't fix that problem (which is part of the whole reason why reviews of his blocks/unblocks never reach an informed consensus) by manufacturing block reasons to dissappear the people who notice these things and seek to give advice to the folks at WP:WER about what to do about it in future. So, you're move. Make it a wise one, because you are being watched. In a way - a non threatening way - just like Eric today. I don't mean being watched by Wikipedia insiders by the way who would be able to affect any action you take against me, so don't feel as if you should do something differently. If you would have used that second to last sentence to validate talk page protection as some kind of threat under HARASS against yourself, then feel free to do so. Try and do whatever it is you would do under normal conditions. It's important (but not so important you need to worry about it too much). Banana Clock (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Just to let you know You have been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Blocking_of_participants_in_this_wikiproject.3F. XOttawahitech (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)