User talk:Itgetsworse

Welcome!

Hello, Itgetsworse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop adding unfounded sockpuppet tags to users' userpages, as it is highly disruptive. Wait until the SPI concludes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks for the heads up and hopefully this case will be closed shortly. Itgetsworse (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

How was I "abusing multiple accounts"? Said admin threw that at me during a deleted (he was also the deleting admin) SPI case on another user. I attempted to contact him on IRC over the issue, where he also banned me and stated, "you have no evidence, I read the case, and you can get out from behind the proxy your on now." Itgetsworse (talk) 6:19 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Come out from behind your proxies and perhaps we can talk. In the meantime, you remain blocked. Any unblocking should be discussed with a checkuser/arbcom first. TN X Man 00:50, 27 January 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.

No.2

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).

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

Request reason:

See above, according to WP:PROXY I am not required to "come out from behind" it. Itgetsworse (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — Joseph Fox 03:47, 27 January 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.

Doing it right

{{unblock|First off, I'd like to thank Fox for handling the situation calmly, something I should have done from the begging.

"understand what you have been blocked for"

I was banned for, what I assume to be, disruptive editing. Yes, I am involved with the GNAA (you can find me on irc.ww88.org #gnaa using the nick 'bant'). Is that alone block worthy? I'd hope to think not, especially considering the fact that I have not once touched a GNAA-related article.
However, I do agree that some of my recent behavior was certainly not in good faith. Evidence was discovered that unearthed User:Fluttershy as a sockpuppet of User:Pickbothmanlol. I felt it necessary to open an SPI case, as Fluttershy was an "established editor". The GNAA tag brought a bit of trouble along the way, and I was instantly counted off as a troll and the SPI was removed (which User:Michaeldsuarez later reopened with more, conclusive evidence. It should also be noted that Fluttershy quit afterwards). Long story short, I lost my temper and made a few smart-ass comments to admins and got myself blocked.

"will not continue to cause damage or disruption"

If given the chance to edit again, I will only do so in good faith and thus will cause no harm or disruption to the encyclopedia. I've been here for months already, with no issues up until now. If necessary I will avoid all GNAA and trolling related topics, as well as anything else considered "controversial"

"will make useful contributions instead"

As stated above, there will be nothing to fear from here on out.

Additionally, I've looked over WP:PROXY, which states that my use of them does not violate policy. Privacy is a big deal to me, I'm sure a lot of you can relate. Itgetsworse (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

Looks like you slipped up there. This user is a

Confirmed sock of Princess Derpy (talk · contribs) and has been tagged accordingly. TN X Man 12:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]