Ctwdidognom (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block reason said, "trolling."
FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trolling
Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling. By themselves, misguided nominations, votes, and proposed policy are not trolling. They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias. This requires a judgment of the personal motivation for another's action. Such a judgment can never be made with anything approaching certainty. This fact should always be kept in mind when one is tempted to label someone a troll.
When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others.
I merely asked someone to answer their email. I was banned FOREVER without warning or anything. I did not know it was wrong to do this. I also don't believe people should be banned forever just for this.
Decline reason:
see below
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I've contacted your blocking admin about this. He/I should give you a clearer reason why you were blocked and if it needs to be lifted. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 10:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The editor has a total of three edits...the first to an editor asking him to check his email after I blocked for being either permanently banned Daniel Brandt or amorrow, or at the very least, a meatpuppet of one of those two...his second edit was to his userpage and if you hover your curser over his "edit"...it's to the http://www.example.com link title link that was always used for vandalism purposes all over the place...and edit three is to ask to be unblocked. He/she has sent me the exact same email about 10 times.--MONGO 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Example thingie is right above the edit box. I doubt it was ever some vandalism target. I'm sure it's been protected. MONGO I think you made that part up. Also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trolling it says things like ignorance is not trolling, bias isn't. It also says you should NEVER bite the newcomers. Everyone started out with few edits. If you got banned early in wikipedia, would you still have come back? Ctwdidognom 22:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Nobody explained why. I proved I was not a troll by citing wikipedia policy, which clearly was violated by the one who blocked me. I have emailed the blocking admin many times and he or she will not answer. How do I get to the unblock mailing list?
I was informed on my talk page something I hadn't noticed before...duh...this person's username, if spelled backwards: Ctwdidognom = mongo did wtc (Mongo did the World Trade Center....arrticles I edit often relate to the events of 9/11)[1]...I suppose had I seen that, I would have asked someone else to do the block. I wonder how many sockpuppets this person has. Stop wasting our time.--MONGO 03:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)