PrincessMint

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Is this right?PrincessMint (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Higurashi no Naku Koro ni. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —C.Fred (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a concern about the content of the article, you need to discuss it on the talk page. I could have very easily blocked you for this edit for violation of the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet you've said nothing to Erigu. Discussion is impossible. I tried. Erigu just says "Don't listen to (user). They're a sockpuppet.". And then the discussion ends. Look at his talk page. You want proof? I'll even show you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erigu#Re:_Higurashi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umineko_no_Naku_Koro_ni#Is_this_a_horror_game.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umineko_no_Naku_Koro_ni#Spoilers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wild_Arms_(series)#3rd_party_neutral_opinion

Noticing a pattern?PrincessMint (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Haunting Ground

Yes, you're signing fine now. Your source does not say that the game was intended as a sequel, all it does is compare how similar they are, if I am wrong, please tell me what paragraph states it was originaly going to be a sequel, cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not my source. Other people posted sources though. Erigu just likes to harass people. I doubt he's ever even played the game, yet he believes he has the right to decide what deserves to be in the article and what doesn't. He's doing the same thing on a bunch of other articles. The worst example, is the Wild ARMs articles. He admits he's never played the game, it seems, yet made a bunch of edits to the article, going against Wiki's rules. And no one can fix it, because he'll do what he did with me-accuse them of being a sockpuppet, then go around telling everyone else. It's really irritating.PrincessMint (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding your edit summary on your last revision, note that Softpedia is not a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is insane. Oh, and why am I the only one who got a warning? What about Erigu? What about the other people who were involved in the edit war? And look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erigu#Re:_Higurashi

Seriously, I'm fed up. I came here to edit, and then this guy comes and accuses me of being a sockpuppet. He messed with all my edits using whatever excuse he can find, refuses to discuss or listen to reason, and is just generally offensive. I do not appreciate him going around telling people I'm a sockpuppet or a banned user, nor do I appreciate his nasty remarks. If you're an admin, shouldn't you be doing something about this? This is out of control, and yet I'm the one getting the warning?PrincessMint (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, Please, stop editing mainspace articles intill this is resolved, I don't want you to get yourself a block, but we can't assume good faith forever, just have some patience, and we can sort this out, cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible. Don't you see what's happening here? There were three other users involved in the edit wars he mentioned, so why am I the only one who got a warning? They have all been downright nasty, and they certainly have not been assuming good faith. Erigu has accused me or sockpuppetry and is telling everyone that's true and to undo my edits. These people have even admitted my edits are right, yet still push their own edits, just to bother me. They've followed me to other articles as well. Someone needs to tell THEM to stop, not me. I'm not the one refusing discussion, but Erigu is not capable of such things. He either makes sockpuppet accusations or lies. And note that that admin didn't bother to respond here.PrincessMint (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I shouldn't bother trying to talk to C.Fred ‎or Erigu again as they both appear to be offline. So lets settle this: if you ever violate the 3 revert rule again, you are likely to be blocked, if you disagree wiht someone, don't just revert their edits, instead, try and have a sensible discussion, if you can provide reliable sources (anything other then softpedia, the others seem to have a problem with that website ^^) for Hunting groud originally being a sequel, I'd be more then happy to add that in myself and would stand by that edit, but only if you provide a reliable source, and stop edit warring, what do you think? Cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you listening to yourself? Stop telling me these things. I'm not the problem. Who was it that undid edits without any discussion? Erigu and the others. They aren't interested in discussion. They know they're wrong, but they just don't care. Erigu has been at this for over a year now. And you just undid my Haunting Ground edit, encouraging me to break the rules, even though I provided two new sources. If you truly want to help, you can't avoid talking to the people creating the problem. They are the ones against any discussion, who are just reverting edits for fun.PrincessMint (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of your last 50 edits, there have not been any to article Talk pages. That certainly qualifies as a lack of discussion.

Regarding the lack of warnings to other editors, in the one article I saw, Erigu stopped short of violating 3RR. He's also a more established editor and knows full well the restrictions of things like 3RR. (Truth be told, if anything, rather than keep reverting your changes with the sockpuppet comment in the edit summary, he should've come out and made the accusation on your user talk page. Also, the more you protest, the more I see the pattern that I think he sees.) At any rate, don't assume that administrators aren't watching the conduct of all parties involved. —C.Fred (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Haunting Ground. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Nationmaster.com just parroted the Wikipedia article; a circular source is not allowed. The Helium article is borderline. Were there a citation or bibliography in the article, I'd let it go. Again, the venue for discussion at this point is Talk:Haunting Ground, not an edit summary. —C.Fred (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Erigu has reverted my Haunting Ground edits 4 times, which is more than three. Both he and Juchachi have undone my List of Higurashi Characters edits four times. And 29Dupe did the same one the Higurashi no Naku Koro ni page. That aside, they all, especially Erigu, are being hostile towards me. So, I'm not supposed to protest his false accustions and rude behavior? And I'm the one seeing a pattern here. This is what Erigu does. He irritates editors until they defend themselves, so that they look like the bad guys. Just check out his actions towards other users he has made accusations against. I'm not the one who needs to start discussing-they are. I showed you in the links above, Erigu refuses to discuss. Heck, he joins ongoing discussions just to say someone is a sockpuppet and stop all discussion.PrincessMint (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And borderline should be enough. As it is, it seems like there's no source that's acceptable, regardless of what it is.PrincessMint (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Higurashi Rei

As I may be one of the "others" you're referring to, for Higurashi no Naku Koro ni case, please see and discuss in the talk page. —29th ((☎)) 06:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked

You have been blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of SyberiaWinx/Fragments of Jade. Again. The same offer to set this all side remains. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Same editing pattern. Same article interests (Clock Tower and Higurashi are SW's established interests, with some of SW's socks being named after characters/things/etc.). Doesn't indent replies. Tends to claim "official sources" back her up, citing front pages of official sites or nothing. Effeminate name from Japanese pop culture. "No proof that I'm a sockpuppet!"

There's too much quacking here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. There's no user named SyberiaWinx, so would you care to explain how I could have anything in common with them? Even if it were a banned uers, I can see that their user page would still exist. Since there's no user by that name, I can't comment on what you said about "editing pattern", as I don't know what hers is. Same article interests? I've never played Clock Tower, just Haunting Ground. Those games are hard to find these days. And so I like When They Cry, that hardly makes me a sockpuppet. Lots of people like it. And plenty of people have usernames related to things or characters. But for the record, my name doesn't come from anything but my own imagination, and I certainly don't see how you can claim it's fron Japanese pop-culture. What the heck is identing? I'm still a new user, so I can't pick up everything in one day, especially when I've got all this forced on my plate. It took me forever just to figure out I was supposed to sign talk page messages! And who wouldn't say official sources back them up?! Higurashi Rei's official site does say it was aired on Pay Per View. However, you can't link directly to an individual news entry, and there are a lot of them, so I told the person to just search for PPV. It's easy, with the "Find a Word on This Page" feature. So I said there was no proof I'm a sockpuppet. There isn't. What, was I supposed to just let Erigu go around telling people that? It's a lie!PrincessMint (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

SyberiaWinx is the off-wiki user name that Erigu mentioned that was linked to the Fragments of Jade/WhiteKnightLeo/etc. sockmaster. It's as good a name as any, and it doesn't really matter if you are or aren't SyberiaWinx, since you are clearly Fragments of Jade et al. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that I'm not. And wow, that really says a lot about you, doesn't it? You have no problem damaging the reputation of some girl, based on something Erigu says? I hope this SyberiaWinx person actually joins Wiki one day and gives you what-for in return for slandering her. As an admin, isn't it your job to stop things like that and this from happening? Look at the claims you are making! Those things make me a sockpuppet? Any username can be tied to something if you try hard enough. My name could be "Edward05", and I bet you and Erigu would say, "Oh, well the previous sockpuppets had Japanese pop-culture names, and Edward is a character from the anime Fullmetal Alchemist". There's no way for anyone to avoid being labelled a sockpuppet once they run into Erigu. He finds someone suitable, finds random connections, harasses them, and then some admin bans them without a proper investigation. It's sad when people that are supposed to be making sure bad things don't happen not only let them happen, but cause them to.PrincessMint (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My evidence is circumstantial, yes, and no single part of it is damning on its own. It's a body of related circumstantial evidence. As before, my offer to unblock and set aside this whole sockpuppetry nonsense remains if you come clean, disengage from Erigu (and if he harasses you after that, he and I will have a chat), and stop edit warring.

Incidentally, Erigu pointed out here where PM's name is likely from, and it makes sense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet, so I don't see how this offer is supposed to appeal to me at all. And have you ever noticed that your circumstamtial evidence could easily be applied to anyone? Take Erigu, for example. He's edited the Haunting Ground and When They Cry pages, but never for anything other than to undo other people's edits... His name could be linked to effeminate Japanese pop-culture, as could any name. And his general behavior is hostile.

Though your offer doesn't benefit me at all, I'm inclined to point out a few things. Your conditions. First, you mention not engaging Erigu. I've looked at a few of the other accused sock puppets, but the only one doing any engaging seems to be him. All I did was edit the Haunting Ground page, and suddenly, I'm a sockpuppet. How many of the other accused parties are the same? An edit is made on a page Erigu is uknowingly monitoring, Erigu decides to undo that edit without any given reason, and without any discussion, Erigu decides that person is a sockpuppet. He finds little things to connect the accused with another alleged sockpuppet, then requests a checkuser. And then, he goes around undoing that person's edits and telling anyone involved with them that they are a sockpuppet, despite it just being something he believes. And yet, you want to tell other people to stop engaging? How about you tell Erigu to stop getting on people just for editing? He knows all the rule loopholes, and he will undo any edit he can, claiming it is unsourced or false, regardless of whether or not he has actually played the game, watched the show, etc. He acts like he knows everything and has the right to decides what should or should not be on a page, and that is just wrong.

Erigu is the problem here, not everyone else. Why don't you try it out yourself? I dare you. Make a new account and make a true but unsourced edit to a page you know Erigu frequents. See how fast you're told you're a sockpuppet.PrincessMint (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to unblock request. I tried to assume good faith with this editor last night. Look at the number of times I did not give a 3RR block and instead pleaded for her to take the issues to the talk page. However, the more this editor has gone along, the more her actions match the pattern of Fragments of Jade. One of the clinchers is the selective removal of other people's comments on her talk page, which has started again.[1] Accordingly, I can no longer assume good faith, but the editing pattern of the account tells me that this is another account controlled by Fragments of Jade.

I endorse the application of Fragments of Jade's community ban to this account. Now, because I was involved in the original block, I have not formally reviewed the unblock template left above, to allow other admins to find it and consider it. I do ask, in return, that my comment be given the same protection that an {{unblock reviewed}} template would get—namely, that this comment not be deleted from your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

40 Lashes

Okay, hold the phone. Is this guy really an admin? Because he declined my unblock requests, but seems to be a new user. He's made a lot of edits that it seems only admins should be able to make, and look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marinecore88&diff=prev&oldid=274884913

Of course, no one corrected his edits on my page, and given how A Man in Black has treated me, maybe this is acceptable behavior for admins...PrincessMint (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no way is this guy an admin. He's been undoing constructive edits, then placing "last warnings" on people's talk pages, accusing them of vandalism. And he's marking admin discussions as resolved, when they haven't been. He's also decling people's unblock requests in a very nasty manor, as shown in the link above. All of his edits have been trashy and suspicious...PrincessMint (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And this Joe Taliban who also edited my page is doing the same thing.PrincessMint (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Joe Taliban and 40 lashes found your talk page. They didn't do anything that "only admins should be able to"; however, they were abusive in their use of warnings and with the unblock message one of them left.

That said, plenty of admins have had a chance to see your unblock message. —C.Fred (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. They did more than one unblock review. If someone is going to review an unblock it should be an admin who will take things seriously. This new fake admin was rude as well, just as much as 40 Lashes. I'm not a sockpuppet, yet they don't care.PrincessMint (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PrincessMint (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

What?! How am I banned? This is truly unbelievable. Erigu lies and harasses me, and I get in trouble?! I don't deserved to be blocked, since I'm not a sockpuppet, and there is no proof that says otherwise. It's unfair that all it takes is Erigu insisting someone's a sockpuppet for them to get blocked! I looked it up-there's not even a user named SyberiaWinx here, so how the heck am I a sockpuppet of her? And what's all this about a bloody offer?!

Decline reason:

Hello again, Fragments of Jade. No. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

As the blocking administrator, I would not object to you replacing {{unblock}} on your talk page. I would, however, recommend a different message; a more conciliatory one may have more luck.

And, honestly, I don't really care if you admit that you're FOJ or not. A promise to disengage from Erigu and stop edit warring and just grok a bit of calmness would be enough to give you another chance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The previous one was declined by a fake user, so the whole page had to be revised. And did you even read what I said the last time you said those things? I did not engage Erigu-Erigu engaged me, and he still is. You think I want anything to do with him? Even if I were unblocked, do you honestly think he's ever gonna leave me alone? I won't be able to make a single edit without him undoing it for whatever reason he decides to come up with. And you say I can't fight or run away? But what else is there? Erigu doesn't discuss, as I pointed out even further above, with various links. And no matter what proof is provided, it's unacceptable. I won't be called a liar or bothered every time I edit or post proof or what-not.PrincessMint (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well. If his reasons are good, you'll need to have better reasons, and convince other users of them instead of pressing ahead reverting in the face of opposition.

If he's harassing you, I'll deal with that. Right now, you're persona non grata on Wikipedia, and I'm offering you the means to change that. Once that's changed, then rooting you out and chasing you off is no longer acceptable behavior.

But you're going to have to accept that you're going to be wrong sometimes, and that you'll have to deal with people you won't necessarily like. That's one of the unfortunate realities of this project and...well...reality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's were the problem comes in. First, how would you feel if EVERY edit you made was reverted by someone? Or if you couldn't have a discussion because that same person would always join and call you a sockpuppet or a liar? The sad fact is, because of the way Wikipedia's rules are, it's easy to find an excuse to revert an edit. The easiest way is to claim it's unsourced, then dismiss any sources provided as unacceptable. And I'd like to be able to edit pages for other games and shows as well, without Erigu saying that some sock shared that interest, therefore, I must be them. You say these things to me, but as I've been saying all along, what about Erigu? Isn't he the one who goes in and reverts edits without any discussion and sometimes not even a reason? Why doesn't he have to start up a discussion for once? And by discussion, I don't mean flat-out telling someone they are wrong or lying, but actually trying to work something out? I don't know what his issue is with this SyberiaWinx, and I don't really want to know, but I'm not her, I never will be her, and there's honestly no reason to believe anyone else here is her, until an account by that name has been created. Even if Erigu persists in calling every suspected sock that, I suggest you stop it. Seems like a big name on the internet, and no reason for an innocent person to have their reputation ruined.PrincessMint (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. If you accept this offer, nobody will have any business calling you a sockpuppet unless you go making new accounts to agree with yourself or something. I am offering you another chance, a chance to put the sockpuppetry behind you.

Now. If we aren't treating with you as the sockpuppet of a problem user, your part of the bargain is to not be a problem user. Understand this: you are blocked not because you are a sockpuppet. You are blocked because you have been blocked before for being obnoxious and not learned your lesson. The lesson is to stop revert warring and chill out during disputes. If you do those things, and are still treated poorly, then I happen to be empowered to deal with that as well, and you can come to me on my talk page and ask for my help as long as you are not wasting my time.

You have had a rocky start, but I do not want to throw you out of the project on your ear. Chill out, stop reverting, learn to disengage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but how can I get disputes with Erigu settled? For example, I'm a big gamer. And I've become more than aware of the Wild ARMs dispute, but how can I voice my opinion on this without getting attacked? I've seen people post on the talk page, the admin noticeboard, the help desk, and it all ends in disaster. Do you plan to step in and handle that as well? It would be better for everyone if that particular one got resolved. Of course, that's just an example. Erigu has friends in high places, and he doesn't seem to participate properly in disputes.PrincessMint (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

By accepting my offer. Chill out, find something constructive to do that isn't contentious, and lay down the arms on some of the old fights. Wild Arms and this OVA nonsense will keep while you do something productive.

Wikipedia doesn't have much for high places, and you've been blocked and blocked and blocked for being obnoxious.

Now. I want you to tell me that you're going to stop making sockpuppets (you don't even have to admit that FOJ et al. are you, just pledge to stop), stop edit warring, and discuss contentious issues with users politely. In return, I will unblock any single one of your accounts (PrincessMint, if you insist), and will do my best to help you fit into Wikipedia, both with advice and what support I can offer when your history proves to be a problem. The carot if the unblock and my support, the stick is going back to rooting out your latest sock and indefblocking it.

I much prefer helping users to stomping problem ones, but it is ultimately your decision. I want to say, "Ever since that Higurashi unpleasantness was resolved, she's been a model editor." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what are you talking about? I've insisted from the beginning that I'm not a sockpuppet, and I meant it. I can't stop you from believing what you want, but that is the honest truth. It would be an insult to make such a pledge and admit guilt for something I have never done. This is the first time I've ever been blocked, and unblocking other accounts is irrelevant, since this is my only one. I thought you understood that? As for old fights, that's a whole 'nother story. I won't be restricted from articles just because Erigu will throw a hissy fit. There was never any proper discussion over the Wild ARMs issue. Anytime anyone said anything, Erigu labelled them a sock and got them banned. The only discussion that was productive was the one he wasn't aware of, and that was closed down immediately once he got wind of it and showed up to accuse the starter of being a sock. That there is even discussion at all is a bit much, since the facts are really quite simple(though Erigu would have everyone believe otherwise):

http://www.wildarms5.com/

That is an official site. Check the 10th Anniversary section, then go to "History of Wild ARMs". It makes it clear what the title is and even explains it is an acronym. And the Wikipedia rules on acronyms in titles is quite clear-they are the exception when it comes to not honoring odd capitalizations in titles.PrincessMint (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't even have to admit that FOJ et al. are you, just pledge to stop. Pledge that you're going to stop making sockpuppets (you don't even have to admit that FOJ et al. are you, just pledge to stop), to stop edit warring, and to discuss contentious issues with users politely.

If your next edit isn't this, then we're done here. I've really given you more of my time than I would give most similarly-problematic users, and it's not as though I'm getting paid for this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I fell for this. I should have trusted my instincts after what I read on Erigu's talk page. Don't you get it? I'm not a sockpuppet! I've never created a sockpuppet in my life! Even to get unblocked, I will not admit guilt for something I have not done! You can threaten me all you want, but it won't happen. It's like you are suddenly going back on everything you've promised. This is my first and only account on Wikipedia, yet you want to label me as a criminal? It's not worth. I'm innocent, and I won't sell my reputation and dignity on behalf of this plea bargain disguised as a genuine offer of help to a victim.PrincessMint (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we're done. You're too busy clinging to nonsense when I'm offering you a chance to get back in good graces without even having to admit the sockpuppetry. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You were just toying with me all along, for your amusement. That was your intention from the beginning, regardless of what you said. You knew you were wrong, but rather than just admit it, you tried to bribe me into taking the fall for you. How can you be so horrid? It's bad enough you played Erigu's hitman and banned me based on very loose circumstantial evidence, but this is just too much.PrincessMint (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Should you decide that editing Wikipedia unhindered is more important to you than playing the victim, my offer still stands. In the meantime, if you request unblock a third time without showing a shred of repentance or conciliatory intent I will protect your talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And so you admit it. How can you toy with a person like that? I AM the victim! You blocked me as a sockpuppet for very flimsy reasons. A name related to Japanese pop-culture? That's insane! And you said you would unblock me, but then suddenly added this condition of me admitting falsely to being a sockpuppet! And stop threatening me! I am not a sockpuppet! I have no reason to show repentance! You owe me an apology, not the other way around!PrincessMint (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Man, I am getting soft in my old age.

I do not care if you admit to anything, be it being a sockpuppet or plotting to blow up Parliament. I honestly don't care even a teensy tiny bit. You do not need to admit to anything but you do need to understand what behavior is problematic and stop it.

You need to make a good-faith pledge to not do a number of obnoxious things that are in your immediate edit history. Considering you've expended everyone else's stores of patience and all but extended mine, this is a generous offer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not generous, but you try and insist it is. You done nothing but harass me, and your reasons for doing so are very flimsy. You want me to say that I won't create any sockpuppet accounts or harass people, implying that I did so even though I never did either. You want me to answer for crimes I never committed, while Erigu gets off scott-free. It's incredibly insulting. I came here and tried to improve pages, Erigu starts attacking me, you ban me without proper evidence, and I'm at fault? Is this what the other banned users had to go through, because it's an injustice. I will always refuse to admit guilt when I am innocent. I edited with good-faith from the moment I joined. When has Erigu ever done that, huh? He undid my edit, accused me of being a sockpuppet, filed a report against me, would not discuss anything, started undoing other edits of mine, told people I was disagreeing with that I was a sock and would be banned, and harassed me over and over wherever he could. How is that good-faith? I'm not the one who needs to be lectured here.PrincessMint (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request #3

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PrincessMint (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet. Accusation and banning was based only on very loose circumstantial evidence, such as my name allegedly being related to Japanese pop-culture and liking the same game as another user. I am sick of getting messed with. The first admin who review this was actually just a troll posing as an admin, as was the second. The third was just rude and downright discrimination, though I can't be certain if they were an actual admin or not. And the person who blocked me played around with me with a fake offer to unblock me, with the secret agenda of getting me to falsely admit that I'm a sockpuppet. I'm not, and I can't understand how I can even be put through this. I am a new user, yet one person accuses me of being a sock with such flimsy reasoning and everyone believes it and harasses me. I'm a person, not some plaything.

Decline reason:

Not only is there plenty of reason to believe you're a sockpuppet, but you've also shown a very poor attitude in response to A Man In Black's extraordinarily generous offer of amnesty. Never mind not accepting it, you've basically responded by attacking him and everyone else. If you can't agree to edit with only one account and stop the incivility and revert-warring, then we don't want you editing whether or not you are evading a block. Mangojuice^talk 16:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Note the other unblock requests in the history. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Requests? I only found one which was answered legitimately. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, looks like the other one got trolled. Well, the other request, then. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not generous! I only have one account! And I've seen the sockpuppet evidemce, and it's both flimsy and circumstantial. My username being connected to Japanese pop-culture, which is something that can be said of ANY username if you try hard enough, proves nothing. They sell mints right here in my country. Is it because Japan has a princess? So do a lot of other countries. Liking a certain game doesn't make me a sock either. If you're going to make accusations and treat me like some kind of villain, you need to provide some real evidence. And it might help it you guys both stopped trying to attach the sockpuppets to someone off Wiki and actually gave warnings to the others who were edit-warring.PrincessMint (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said to you before. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)