User talk:Hatchmight

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Hatchmight! Thank you for your contributions. I am Iryna Harpy and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest 2017 and 2018[edit]

Hello,

I have deleted these very short articles you recently created under Criterion G4 of the speedy deletion criteria as they were effectively re-creations of pages that had been deleted following a deletion discussion. In any case, there is no point creating an article on a subject unless reliable sources are discussing that subject; the articles as they were conferred no useful information - please review Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. The established consensus for Eurovision Song Contest YYYY articles is to create articles during or just before the previous year's content, as that is when information becomes available to allow the creation of a useful article. Thank you. CT Cooper · talk 22:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, and you are...? Hatchmight (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally signed my post using five tildes rather than four, resulting in the date and time being shown but not my username. My apologies for this error though my identity was always clearly visible in the page history. CT Cooper · talk 20:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, got it all now. Thanks for all the info, I won't create any more Eurovision articles for the coming years. Hatchmight (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Time in America‎[edit]

The nationality of the director has nothing to do with what country the film is from. MarnetteD|Talk 23:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you need to cut these templates because you are not dealing with an account created on the same day and one that isn't autoconformed. As regards to your claim of editwarring, I'd be very careful spilling the beans in your situation as the history shows you too to be in breach of the three-revert rule and I will use that as part of my defence if I get reported. I would have self reverted but cannot do so now because it would involve wiping the contributions of another editor who I feel has made the necessary improvements to the article. Hatchmight (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dating tags[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know that it isn't necessary to add a date as a bot comes through and dates it (plus registers it in the database). Either way, the bot has to come through in order to record that a 'cite needed' tag has been added. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, thanx for the SP. Hatchmight (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not a problem, Hatchmight. Actually, I'm secretly pleased to welcome a fellow pedant aboard (there are a few of us about, but not enough to suit my taste). It's good to see a new editor erring on the side of caution. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure Iryna Harpy! Let me know when you need help against the wretched vandals. Hatchmight (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MindTouch[edit]

Well, all's well that ends well. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to edit articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict[edit]

According to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, you are not allowed to edit any article or section related to the Arab–Israeli conflit until you reach 500 edits in total and 30 days of usership. You can be involved in discussions in talk pages but not in the articles themselves. So if you want to change anything, feel free to express it in the talk pages. Good day.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

You have been reported for edit warring. [1] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DMacks (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind telling me exatly what was "disruptive" as you put it? All I can tell you is that I am not alone in any "disruptive" activity. I have worked DAMN hard to remove spam and large sections on unsourced material from this site. Hatchmight (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime @CT Cooper: might like to explain why he deleted a ton of valid pages including User talk:King leer01 after I create them. I only made one attack and that was all, and was provoked by the same individual - my question is, why were the genuine pages for real people deleted?. Hatchmight (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been told why, but I'll say it again anyway: They were deleted because you were clearly mass adding welcome notices for no reason other than to artificially increase your edit count – almost all of them were for users who had never edited. That is spamming/disruptive editing, which is sufficient grounds to delete all of them. Not to mention, one of the pages had a title which can only be considered harassment. User talk:King leer01 was restored due to the edits other users have made on that page. I would drop the stick and take the 31 hour block if I was you, as a significantly longer block would not have been unjustified. CT Cooper · talk 21:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the stick I have no option other than to do as I have no ground for appeal. However CT Cooper, that what you need to realise, and what every other editor needs to realise is that if I go back to ordinary non-spam editing, it will take longer to hit the 500 target. But, sooner or later, it's gonna happen whether Mr Nice Guy likes it or not, and nobody is going to have any ammunition to have me blocked once this block is lifted. Then, he will have no reason on this globe to go removing good faith edits from Arab-Israeli pages that he personally doesn't like. I see that despite the edit warring on his part, at least two of us used the talk page, and neither he nor anyone else responded, but proceeded to blindly revert on account of the Arbcom rule. Well, when I get to 500, that little "loophole" won't be there for him, and if he wants to play silly bugger then and try reverting 4 times, he can face the consequences. I'll get to 500 with legit edits, make no mistake, the rest of them who are not here to build an encyclopedia but game the system with silly rules can start sweating and losing sleep from now. Hatchmight (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli-Arab conflict is a controversial issue. So you are not allowed to edit it, as long as your don't have a résumé of 500 edits and 30 days. When you will be able to edit Israeli-Arab conflict related articles, you"ll have to understand no editor is allowed to revert an edit more than one time per 24 hours. You have broken two rules, and one of them, you have broken four times in a row. Your Block will not be lifted, I can assure you without being an admin.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21, so it's ok for User:No more Mr Nice Guy to flout one revert in 24hrs and to bring on the case for edit warring but not for the one without the correct resume. Hatchmight (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. clpo13_(talk) 21:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:01, 17 March 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Can somebody kindly point out to me the nature of the complaint? I haven't seen any instances that I was reported or that my edits caused some form of offence. "Not here to build encyclopedia", when one is blocked on banned it normally suggests the editor is either vandalising, edit-warring or trolling. If something felt I did was wrong then there was no caution but I know of nothing anyhow. On my last editing session, masses of pages were deleted because they welcomed accounts that had not edited (plus the one red herring). On this occasion, I focused on those I saw made at least one contribution. They weren't my only edits of course but it seems these too have been wiped off. It is my belief that any wrongdoing should have received at least one caution and be followed by a longer block. I was just instantly given a permanent ban so something here is not right. It is my believe that welcome pages where someone hasn't edited is not spam or vandalism to the point that an editor needs to be blocked. I am deeply convinced there are more sinister reasons some members of the community want me out of the picture.

Decline reason:

You are done wasting people's time here. Making a few good edits doesn't give you a free pass. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:31, 17 March 2016 (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.

Hatchmight (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking administrator comment: If any admin has any questions regarding this block feel free to contact me at my talk page or via email... but, I'm fairly certain it will be obvious to any other admin why this block was put in place, after you look at their recent deleted contributions (which show a continuation of treating this encyclopedia as a game) and their discourse with other users. The nail Hatchmight put in his own coffin was this comment about his previous block to a respected editor in his edit summary: "Toddst1 can start sweating now in the knowledge that my block is short". Combine that with them beginning the exact same behavior as before (with "creations" such as Talk:7 Drug Free Arthritis TREATMENT Treatments and Talk:Bustin Jeiber) and you have the recipe for a permanent loss of editing privileges. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh unblock request: please consider[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).

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

Request reason:

Please note that I am aware this is my second request and that I have read the guide to unblocking. The full text comes below outside this box for the purpose of less restriction. Hatchmight (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not being entirely honest here, you created talk pages and welcomed new users to increase your edit count. This was gaming the system, and something that you should own up to if you want to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2016 (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.

Firstly, I was blocked indef (banned) without any warning as to any wrongdoing. When blocked the first time for 31 hrs, there had been an act of vandalism whereby I created a page to attack an editor with whom I was having disagreements. Apart from that, I was told that the mass creation of pages whereby I welcomed new accounts amounted to spam although nowhere in the rules is it written that this is not allowed, or that that constitutes spam.

Upon return, I welcomed users yet again, however on this occasion, each user I welcomed had made a minimum of one contribution (not that it is a sin to welcome any true account). Once again, every one of these was mass blanked potentially leaving some of these people scratching their heads as to what happened to their talk pages. I contend that this was not an issue and that I did no wrong.

I created a pack of talk pages and Coffee pointed out the articles 7 Drug Free Arthritis TREATMENT Treatments and Bustin Jeiber. If you look at the links you'll see these were genuine articles that succumbed to deletion although the latter had been deleted literally seconds before I hit "save" which is why I couldn't figure out the error message. It is clear to me now. Either way, each talk page merely displayed the talkpage template and I believe all articles need to have a talk page - I did not take a close look at any of the articles to see if they were speedy deletion cases, I believed that setting up talk pages meant less work for editors later on.

My remark to Toddst1 happened while I had been serving a block. It had already been the case that he suggested that the 31 hour block be extended and I was having awful difficulties with this person anyhow, thus felt very provoked:

. I clashed with User:No More Mr Nice Guy over 2014 Gaza war beach bombing incidents, an unprotected article that bears restrictions and fails to inform editors of this within a pink warning caption when clcking "edit".
. Toddst1 clocks the edit war and issues a warning to me, although I deleted the warning, my response alerted the user that there had been another party involved[2]. However, Toddst1 singularly failed to deliver a single message of warning to No More Mr Nice Guy yet continued to harass me.[3]
. In the meantime, CT Cooper informed me that new user talk pages are a case of spamming and ordered me to stop[4] although this is not remotely true. Accounts don't pop out of thin air, real people make them. Either way, I stopped there and then.
. I then get blocked after I have completely stood to one side hence the reason I got uptight afterwards.
. On the 2014 Gaza war article, No More Mr Nice Guy makes FOUR reverts with impunity because of ruling: [5], [6], [7], [8], citing only the legislation that allows him to act like he does. Now I question, has anybody actually looked beyond the summaries and the resumes of me and King Leer? It is one thing to inform a user that he was not supposed to have made an edit because of ABC rules but another thing altogether to blank an evidently good faith contribution on WP:GAME principles, "I do it because I am simply allowed". No ruling states that an edit made by a new user MUST be blanked. At this rate, it only needed a 500+ editor to vandalise the article, a -500 editor to revert and there you could have had the likes of No More Mr Nice Guy constantly restoring vandalism on account of the rules.
. The restrictions do not forbid people like us on -500 to use the talk page. Both King Leer and I edited Talk:2014 Gaza war beach bombing incidents. The contributions of Mr Nice Guy at no point discuss the topic, but merely rest on the rules of which he flagrantly takes advantage.
. Try as I might, I am hard pressed to see how this contribution is in any way constructive to the project. If it were truly believed that the category did not belong, what stopped one of the reverting editors writing on the talk page or on one of the accounts to say, "by the way, the category is incorrect for XY and Z reasons". If that had happened, it might have prevented any further resistance. I especially have never argued with editors who have shown me that their version was correct and mine was wrong.
. On these notes, I believe that the 500+ rule and its absence from display is a delay tactic to try to "foil" anyone that might make constructive edits to the article as it upsets the "gang" of admins and veterans. Toddst who failed to write to one warring party while pushing for my block to be extended is just one example of the proof that one section of the community was adamant that I should never reach the legit target to make edits where they don't want anybody to contribute.
. When my block was lifted, I welcomed only new users and started some talk pages (all dismissed as spam); no edit could be deemed vandalism and yet had it been felt that something I was doing was wrong, I fail to see what prevented the admin from saying, "look, you shouldn't be doing this and that, please stop now". I mean take vandalism, the Cluebot issues FOUR WARNINGS before INDIVIDUAL cases of vandalism, only reporting a user when he has abused his privilege on a FIFTH time. I don't vandalise after my block, and suddenly, hello? BANNED FOR LIFE.
. Even if my observations are not 100% accurate, they are not 100% wrong either, there is funny business going on here. There is a deception taking place and any half-intelligent individual must surely now be able to smell a rat.

...either way...

Having read the guide to unblock, I would like to demonstrate that I can make useful contributions to the project. Since this is indefinite, I am not in a position to WP:DROP the stick, I have to appeal. I am happy to work in a "restricted environment" on the condition I be unblocked. I will tell you what I mean:

. I pledge not to issue ANY MORE welcome notes, neither to users to have edited nor to those that haven't.
. I pledge not to create any more talk pages on any article, even those that have passed the revision stage a long time before I spotted it.
. The rest of my edits were mostly copyedits, grammatical fixes and removals of unsourced controversial material. If any of this is in some way undesirable, just let me know and I will make a pledge to immoderate the action in question.

Now, I CANNOT be fairer than this. This has been my unblock request. I shall watch the page and respond to admins who are willing to consider or to anyone who has a question for me. Any questions, feel free to ask no matter what it is - but if any non-admin is thinking of lecturing me, forget it, it will be instantly deleted. Any non-admin wishing to lecture can just go on his facebook page, make his point and I guarantee him one nitwit will give it a Like. But any questions, please all be my guest.

Thank you. Hatchmight (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so Phil Knight's question is, was it not the case that by me creating pages and what not that I did this to simply increase my edit count and is that not too an example of gaming the system? Thank you Phil.

Actually no this is not the case. This is no more gaming the system than when an ambitious editor sits all night checking recent changes to halt vandalism, warn the user in question, ultimately report him and then add any created pages to his CSD log. Every contribution knocks his number of edits up. One has to ask himself, in the end of the day, what has the community got to be frightened of? First of all, it is that community that sets dumb rules in the first place such as 30 days 500 edits and so on which if anything might encourage newer editors to edit more often. Plus, surely if it is the admin community's wish that nobody should edit certain pages then why not just keep hat page locked? Or even protected on a more advanced level. Funny how you get these open pages that newcomers are not allowed to touch in one place while elsewhere, that same newcomer couldn't fall into the same trap because a page may be semi-protected. In this case he just sees "view source" and is physically prevented from amending the article.

If there is one thing I believe I should be honest about then that is being around more in the hope of increasing my edit count, that I cannot deny. But was I gaming the system? No sir. I vehemently deny this and this is why: gaming the system is defined as follows:

Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia. Gaming the system may represent an abuse of process, disruptive editing, or otherwise evading the spirit of community consensus. Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view.

If an editor finds a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards or misuse administrator tools, it should not be treated the same as a good-faith mistake. However, Wikipedia sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games. If an editor ignores a warning and repeats their behavior, or if they find new creative ways to achieve the same disruption, it is more likely that they are gaming the system in bad faith.

Broadly speaking, an account launched 30 days ago can innocently and inconspicuously rocket himself up to 500 in a very short time without drawing attention to himself. To know whether he is gaming the system, we need to see what he plans to do after reaching a milestone. Of course if it is to abuse policy or consensus when other people's hands are tied as was the case within the linked examples from people "allowed to edit" and who "refused point blank to talk" with users on the same subject, then naturally that person should be blocked from editing (ie. No More My Nice Guy). But if that person uses his newfound permission to be constructive to the project then that cannot be gaming the system. I believe it is clear from my most recent behaviour that my only intention is to be conducive toward the project.

Anyhow my proposal is likely to have seen an end to any "disruptive" action if creating new pages was considered undesirable as it offers to stop doing this, allowing myself to be bound by such a restriction. Hatchmight (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock continued[edit]

I've answer to Phil Knight, is there anything else anyone else needs to ask me?

If not, can an admin begin the process of explaining what exactly is wanted of me and what needs to be done in order to have my ban lifted. Please note that if there is no reply within five days I will have to use the Unblock feature again - that is the only way to raise alarms off your own talk page if admins are not keeping watch. If I do this, I will cite this pre-warning so it is known I am not abusing the feature. Hatchmight (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request March 23, 2016[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).

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

Request reason:

To an uninvolved admin, I refer to this notification whereby I had been using main-space to appeal a second decision to continue with my ban; in that comment I stated that I would wait five days for a reply, and if nothing came then I would reapply through the "unblock" system. This is a disclaimer to denote that I am aware of the purpose of this tool and it is not my intention to abuse or misuse it. As regards the admins to have dealt with me so far, it is clear that they have washed their hands off my case, however by not having contacted me inside this time, they have automatically agreed that I am welcome to restart a new application in accordance with the directions of my post. I have stuck to my side of the bargain by remaining quiet during this five-day rest period. I ask that my appeal be considered fairly, and that talk page access not be revoked simply because it appears this editor is constantly using "unblock". I defer that this is the only method to ensure my efforts are picked up on another page and that the application needs to be dealt with in due course. The practice of writing on blank white space has got to the point it is falling on deaf ears. I note that it is my intention to edit Wiki and if my TP access is snatched away then I will have no option but to use the email route. Right now I hope we can start to normalize relations between myself and the "rest of the good community" outside of those I have encountered.

Ordinarily, when a user gets blocked or banned, he is expected to address the issues for which he is blocked. There are countless reasons that an editor can find himself blocked, such as:

1) Sockpuppetry
2) Vandalism/Trolling
3) Edit warring
4) Not respecting consensus
5) BLP violations
6) Copyright violations
7) Personal attacks on other editors
and so on

Since it is clear that after my first block, every edit I made was in good faith even if not immediately noticed, I cannot say "I will stop doing 2, 3 and 6" because I hadn't engaged in anything controversial. It merely looked as if I was rushing to lump up my number of edits so as to gain privileges to edit on restricted topics. This in itself is not WP:GAME, in order to constitute GAME it has to be known what the user was planning to do in order to harm the project. I had (and have) no intention of engaging in nonconstructive activity.

My areas of concern were chronicled in a ten-point account that demonstrate the situation in which I found myself and how other involved editors acted. Now as I said, some of my observations may have been inaccurate but it is not the case that everyone I have dealt with so far is 100% right and I am 100% wrong. Something here smells rotten. The way things look to me is as if a section of the community wants me to not edit, like they are trying to protect something but they won't admit what it is. Now with my ten-point account came a three-point proposal which does not even seem to have been addressed. Phil Knight was very quick and abrupt in his decline and his made his statement in such a way as to "close the case". The case is not closed. He made his points, I politely refuted them. Nobody told me what the problem was with my proposal and nobody gave me any proof as to why it is likely to fail if I get unblocked.

As such, I keep to the same proposal and offer any other good will tokens that an admin seeks in return for editing freedom.

I don't expect my unblock to be activated just like that, but, what I do seek now is dialogue, and a road map forward so that sooner or later, I do get unblocked. I need to know what is wanted of me so I can act on that motion.

Thank you for the consideration. Hatchmight (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are assuming bad faith while wikilawyering, and you display a battleground mentality. That's not going to get you unblocked since it indicates that, once unblocked, your conduct would remain disruptive. Huon (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2016 (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.

All right, Huon your argument is that I am wikilawyering and thus assuming bad faith and have a battleground mentality which means I would remain disruptive. Obviously with one to have had the experiences I have had (and examples provided above), if I were to assume "good faith", I'd need a little bit of help from someone to explain to me how the actions of others were in good faith. Either way, I am actually prepared to forget them and move on. It seems nobody can get it into their system that I feel as though I have been "Wiki-assaulted by the gang". The other thing is, you use the term "conduct would remain disruptive", well this is another false observation because if having had the freedom to edit, there would be no "disruptive" attitude towards anybody because I keep myself to myself and leave people be; I don't WP:HOUND or WP:STALK editors, I don't report every Tom, Dick or Harry that I see abusing rules (and I have seen countless in the time I have been blocked), and my edits were all in good faith. I have to be honest here, I am concerned that yet again, my request for unblock has been "declined" with a one-line response that neither explored my scenario nor considered my proposals. In other words, you're the third admin not only to "decline" my unblock request, but "close" it without any consideration for the fact that I am wishing to edit. The only reason my proposals ended where they did was because I have run out of ideas to say, "well look, if unblocked I promise this and that".

Obviously if you see I can do something to help myself then tell me what that is. Now I am going to say this again - I want to discuss the way forward, not the road backward. The past is not returning. I was not banned by the community in any arbitration scheme, in fact I was not even warned that my actions were "disruptive". My editing tenure was destroyed with one aggressive thunder bolt and the "declines" have been equally abrupt, no considerations, no encouragement, no discussion. As I have understood the terms of being banned, it is not to be punitive but to ensure no harm comes to the project. Well, we know the latter won't happen through my actions and nobody has provided a single instance to say, "hey Hatchmight, you should not have made [:this edit]" for such and such reason. So now this leaves us to resolve the issue of WP:PUNISH. My intention is to edit, I need to know what is expected of me and would like to encounter an admin who is willing to discuss and not abruptly close talk. Huon, I need a reply from you so I am prepared to wait. If I see you have been "reasonably active" but have removed your eye from this talk page then I will have to reuse the unblock device. I cannot continue to "talk to myself in the dark". Hatchmight (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final request on visible level[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).

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

Request reason:

This is my fourth and final request for unblock. So far I have been declined by Huon, Phil Knight and Oh No It's Jamie, and all with simple "one line" closures; no avenue for discussion, no offers, no reviews, no perusal of my proposals. Please note I am aware that the "unblock" tool should not be abused and hence this is why I am declaring this to be the final time I use it for this session. My previous unblock requests focused on how I felt treated by the community on the whole whereas for this request, I am not going to project that area of concern. I want to make this one short and simple: I would like to show afresh that I can edit to a standard that I would be appreciated by the wider community. I'd like to show that I do not have the "battleground" mentality despite how previous actions were perceived, and I'd like to show that if I am in the wrong on any policy that I have what it takes to both listen and observe what I am told by those who may know better. But moreover, I would like to atleast get the ball rolling by discussing any matter or offer. Obviously my previous proposals are something I continue to offer and if there is anything else that any admin willing to lift the ban wishes to demand, please just name it. I am aware that certain admins may look upon this fourth request as a means "stop talk page access", if anybody is thinking this, then here is what I ask you to consider: first, I won't be making a 5th, I will be going down the email route (and this post can be taken as evidence). Second, as my ban is indefinite, I am not at liberty to WP:DROP the stick. Doing that will keep me banned for ever. Third, I am happy to converse with any admin in main space provided that admin keeps watch and takes heed of my suggestions and comments, and not just "hit and run" the way the three previous admins to decline me had done. I did state that I would reapply via "RfU" if it became apparent Huon was ignoring this space, which he is as I see he has been fairly active since I appealed to him directly. So this is it. Obviously if anyone out there feels my timing is wrong and that I should wait a certain amount of time, ok fine, but atleast state how long I need to be absent. All I ask for is that whoever deals with this request does not merely "hit and run" for this final request. Hatchmight (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

According to this statement from a CheckUser, you are a sock of Evlekis. Talk page access revoked. Favonian (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2016 (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've added a header so it becomes easier to read, hope you don't mind. Choicerpex (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, very much appreciated. Fingers crossed! Hatchmight (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]