User talk:BarneyRubbleRubble

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).

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

Request reason:

This is supposedly a checkuser block, but is any admin out there willing to investigate whether it's valid or not? Obviously I'm not going to appeal to a sub-committee that's staffed by the exact same people involved in placing fraudulent blocks like this in the first place, so if not, then you're effectively backing up my complaint about institutionalised abuse. The one post I've made is to make a complaint about administrator conduct toward another user on Jimbo's talk page. It's clearly not a 'rant', although that seems to be the common way to dismiss complaints you collectively don't want to answer around here. It shouldn't take a genius to work out that if you want to effectively silence someone who's complaining that way about admins, you fabricate a story that they're one and the same person as the victim of abuse named in the complaint, and apply a 'checkuser block'. What happens if that's a lie though? Who is really checking these blocks, apart from the blockers themselves? To illustrate the fact that checkusers aren't above lying to make blocks like this - try and find out if their claimed link between User:Hackneyhound and User:Chromium Oxide (who it is claimed by this blocker, is also me) is backed up by any actual checkuser data. It isn't, so then try and find out if they can give you anything other than hunches and suspicions to link the two users. They're basically guessing, and are often even upfront about that! Try and find a single admin out there willing to show you why Hackneyhound needed to create the sock Chromium Oxide just to file an ANI report about Malleus Fatuorum. You won't find one, because that evidence doesn't exist, because he is not him, and he is not me. Whether they want to accept it or not, there's more than one person out there who object to the shutting down of ANI reports like this on the basis that they contain complaints they can't/won't act on. Whether they like it or not, there's more than one person out there who object to the existence of admins who shut such complaints down on the totally false basis that the incident had been 'hashed out', only for the attacker to predictably resume their attacks, and the intended target ending up discouraged them from editting, even though they took the high road and ignored the attacks. The only thing this block acheives, is to prevent Jimbo from finding out about stuff like this. Well, one things for sure, he's going to want to know about it if blocks like this continue, because the only avenue left to people like me is the various Wikipedia critique sites, who lap this stuff up because it's really really disgusting in its nature. Who knows, maybe the press might even like it, if it can be packaged properly - Wikipedia loves trolls, that sort of thing. BarneyRubbleRubble (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.