User talk:Essjaywalker

Wikipedia:Village pump/Arbitration Committee Feedback[edit]

Hi, you seem to be a new user. May I ask how you found this internal page about the ArbCom and what prior experience you have with the project? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It came to me in a dream. Essjaywalker (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the form of a flimflam, perhaps? Bishonen | talk 04:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. Essjaywalker, if you happen to know what I'm talking about, you don't have to worry. I won't out you or CU you. Bishonen | talk 07:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thank God for that. Essjaywalker (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

It looks as though I have been blocked for voicing an opinion, even if unpopular. I haven't broken any rules, so please unblock so I can continue my quest to become an admin and run for Arbcom. (PS Newyorkbrad forever) Essjaywalker (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No thanks. We've got enough disruptive editors around here without adding another one. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 12:15, 23 December 2008 (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.

Why is Essjaywalker blocked? I don't get it. Is it the name? That seems excessive. Since when are harmless socks verboten, and where is the supposed disruption? The account's comments on the Village Pump are no more disruptive than my own, and I don't seem to be finding myself blocked. Is it calling Jimbo "God"? I think I've done that as well. I've put a question on Dragonfly's page. If he's not around, I'm going to unblock Essjaywalker in a while, unless somebody else explains this block to me. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I've waited half an hour, but nobody seems to want to discuss this, so...

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I don't see any disruption that warrants a block. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Request handled by: Bishonen | talk 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

That wan't even a proper administrator. They just registered and went straight to MY unblock request. Clearly something fishy is going on

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sockpuppet of User:Wroth of Groth. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:11, 27 December 2008 (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.

I know, I kept reverting him, and you apparently edit-conflicted me. I was trying to tell you that I had contacted a checkuser. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The admin that blocked him as a sockpuppet is a checkuser. --Smashville^talk 22:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Checkuser is clearly attempting to silence me by falsly tagging my account. Newyorkbrad is the only honest one among them

Decline reason:

I am not a checkuser, and you are clearly a troll. Bye. — J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:21, 28 December 2008 (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.

An unrelated check that was carried out due to an unblock request indicates that this account has ties to User:DollyD, a user who was indefinitely blocked as a good hand account of a sockpuppeteer. This explains some of the accusations broguth against me, including the accusation that I conduct matters "inappropriately" in IRC. Infact a block review of DollyD was conducted on IRC, as it contained private information regarding DollyD that would not have been appropriate to reveal onwiki. So to say this means I give out private information is somewhat paradoxical. --Deskana (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you yammering about? You're well known for conducting sensitive WP business on IRC in very inappropriate ways (There are copies of logs from the #wikipedia-en-admins channel, as well as private channels, that were recently distributed by a concerned administrator). And stop trying to justify what you did to my sister's account. You and your friends botched that so badly they blanked and protected her whole talk page to cover it up. She isn't going to even bother trying to get unblocked anymore. Essjaywalker (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your sockpuppeteering clearly proves her my accusation about sockpuppeteering incorrect. Obviously I'm way off. --Deskana (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]