Crzyclarks1
Joined 17 June 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Crzyclarks1 in topic Sockpuppetry case
Sockpuppetry case
edit
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crzyclarks for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.
The block was not just of your old account, but of you as a person. Instead of creating a new account to evade the block, you should request to be unblocked by sending an email to unblock-en-l, explaining why we need not expect further disruption from you. Huon (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'd rather avoid anymore admins. The reasons for the indefinite block were completely made up and apparently one unblock request and replying to people on my talk page is "abusing the unblock process". That was icing on the bullshit cake. If several admins have seen that and think it's fine, then there's not much point. Crzyclarks1 (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- The point is that your editing privileges have been indefinitely revoked, due to a disruptive attitude and inability to work with other editors. There was very strong consensus for a six-month topic ban, which escalated to the block when you continued with your disruptive activities. Now you've created an alternate account to circumvent that block and are continuing with disrupting several articles, which is obviously inappropriate. While normally the sock puppet investigation would be allowed to run its course, you've admitted this is an alternate account. Thus you are being blocked from editing, though your talk page will be left unlocked. Let me stress this again: you are not allowed to continue editing on any article while your editing privileges are revoked. You may of course appeal the block, but until and unless your original account is unblocked, you may not edit. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have a disruptive attitude. I can work with editors, just not the biased editors who are obviously pushing a POV that isn't neutral. Some examples are [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], there are more examples that were sorted in the edit summaries and my first block was the result of reverting rule breaking. I didn't continue with my disruptive activities, provide some examples please. My offer of a toffee still stands. I'd also like some examples on the several articles that I am currently disrupting. Crzyclarks1 (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- The point is that your editing privileges have been indefinitely revoked, due to a disruptive attitude and inability to work with other editors. There was very strong consensus for a six-month topic ban, which escalated to the block when you continued with your disruptive activities. Now you've created an alternate account to circumvent that block and are continuing with disrupting several articles, which is obviously inappropriate. While normally the sock puppet investigation would be allowed to run its course, you've admitted this is an alternate account. Thus you are being blocked from editing, though your talk page will be left unlocked. Let me stress this again: you are not allowed to continue editing on any article while your editing privileges are revoked. You may of course appeal the block, but until and unless your original account is unblocked, you may not edit. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)