User talk:Vitriouxc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comments

Hi. Thanks for coming to Wikipedia. However, please be aware that we are not an internet poll site. While there are many procedures that look a bit like votes, the guiding principle is Consensus amongst editors, and your contributions to the procedural areas are likely to be disregarded, unless you are also seen to be making an effort to improve the encyclopedic content. Remember that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Regards, The Land 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A friendly message

Your account does look like a sockpuppet, a new account does not normally have the insight about an RfA candidate to make an effective vote. Would you be able to explain who exactly you are / what was your previous account. Right now people will normally disregard such comments as RfA is not a vote per say its a discussion -- Tawker 21:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support

Dear Vitriouxc,
Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent votes

Randall Brackett's RFA

[edit] Unblock request

If your so set as to editing with that account, request as Vitriouxc and put the unblock template on your talk page and someone will talk to you. Otherwise, leave the indefblocked template on the userpage. — The King of Kings 08:04 July 09 '06

I will try, but tagging my home page you blanked my whole page and blanking is vandalism. I want you to know that I did place those comments and not an impersonator. If you're willing to work something out that's great, I'd forgive you. Vitriouxc 08:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'm not a vandal. And if it was you, then your violating policy, its called block evasion and your blocked indefinantly. If you want to be unblocked, you have to prove to an administrator that your worthy enough to be unblocked. First you add {{unblock}} with a reason to be unblocked. If an admin feels that you should be unblocked, good your unblocked, but if your not unblocked, then your not allowed to edit until so. — The King of Kings 08:33 July 09 '06

That may be true for a legit block, say by the webmaster. But I was blocked under false accusation and I feel I have a right to continue editing. Keep in mind anyone can become an admin and block someone else for whatever reason. In this case I feel the user's actions violated the principles of WP:FAITH and I have a right to appeal. You're prolley that user because you're his friend and you trust him enough to say that critisizing him is possibly a personal attack. In any event if the block is reduced I will certainly wait, but if the block is indefinate what have I got to lose? Vitriouxc 08:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Vitriouxc 08:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no webmaster on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a democracy nor a voting poll which is your primary reason for editing thus far. I am not Cyde nor his friend. I mostly tend to disagree with his views actually, except here. Add the template and talk to another admin and just be patient. — The King of Kings 08:45 July 09 '06

Moe Epsilon (talk • contribs): First off, your block evading. Which is against policy. Multiple accounts are not forbidden, but using multiple accounts to influence votes, vandalize or otherwise are forbidden. Yes, there is clear cut evidence that says your gulity. Your userpage stated that you were only here to vote, which Wikipedia isn't a democracy nor a voting poll. And I'm sure Cyde digged as far as your userpage before deciding to block you. — The King of Kings 08:39 July 09 '06

Maybe he reailized that, but I didn't. The nom is over so we can continue debating this here. Vitriouxc 09:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your immediate participation in deletion and RFA discussions suggests a pre-existing knowledge of Wikipedia practices... and thus that this account may itself be the sockpuppet of some other user created specifically for the purpose of 'stacking' discussions. You have not explained what you want to do here which requires unblocking and have no 'positive' contributions under this account to suggest that you had/have interests other than unbalancing 'polls'. --CBD 14:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you also violate WP:FAITH. Consider that I stumbled upon the WP:RFA page when I found a comment like the one above and tried my hand at voting, I eventually got bored of it and began reading articles. The site seems to be both an encyclopedia and a discussion forum in one. The troubling fact is that the user that blocked me did it indefinately, even though I had no previous blocks, not did he post any message. It's like getting a life sentence for a misdemenor. You can't expect me to take this block seriously when the user didn't post any message. Keep in mind that this block came after 8 days of inactivity. Vitriouxc 02:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I did consider that you could have just 'stumbled upon' WP:RFA... after you had just 'stumbled upon' the AfDs you voted on... and that you figured out how to do signatures with timestamps from your very first edit... and understood wiki-markup well enough to correct it's mis-usage by others [1]... all on your first day here. It just didn't seem remotely plausible, doesn't explain why you would want to 'vote' on things you knew nothing about, and does nothing to suggest that you have anything positive to contribute. Indeed, you haven't even claimed that you do or said what it would be. You claim that you didn't know there was an encyclopedia here... but 'voted' on what the contents of that encyclopedia should be and who should administer it. That is also not remotely plausible, but even if we perform 'AGF gymnastics' to accept this as possibly true... placing 'votes' with no knowledge of what you were talking about would still clearly be intentionally disruptive action. --CBD 11:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You can say that all you want. Even if you were right, the kind of block I received was way too harsh. Add to the fact that Cyde has not responded to any comments shows a lack of responsibily. You're supporting him because it looks to me you're going out of your way to prove me wrong and clear his name. Both of your suspisions hold little water. Don't forget person can also read help pages and get the knowhow before creating a username. I am only trying to work this out because I don't want to have to make another username. I have some edits and I'd hat to start a cat and mouse where I'll create usernames only to have them blocked. The other user that started this discussion stated that I'm forbidden to edit this site, if the site has no webmaster or owner, then who are you to say I can't edit if the person that blocked himself is just another user like you? Vitriouxc 22:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)