User talk:74.200.75.5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop trolling the arbcom elections, you have no right to vote as an IP, if you do that one more time I would block you. This is a Secret account 03:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Most unwarranted. No vote was exercised more than one in regard to any candidate. This can be verified. Wikipedia contributors are entitled to exercise their vote on every proposed candidate and not be intimidated from it through heavyhanded actions of this sort from the likes of User:Hemlock Martinis. Incredible that voting should be sought, and people be victimised for doing so!"

Decline reason: "As per above. You have no right to vote as an IP. — Yamla 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.


Furthermore, this information has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote in the "Voting instructions" section. A quote from there:

In order to vote, you must have an account registered with at least 150 mainspace edits before the start of the nomination process November 1, 2007.

You obviously fail to meet the voting requirements, since you are not using a registered account. Feel free to create an account and you'll be able to vote next time, assuming you meet the other requirements at that time. - Rjd0060 05:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocked

I can't see how failing to know that an account is needed to vote in ArbCom elections requires a 2 week block. I have unblocked this account now that the voting requirements have been fully explained. You are welcome to ask questions of the candidates or to post comments on the talkpages of the vote pages but an account with 150 contribs to articles before Nov 1 is required to vote (to try and stop people voting twice). WjBscribe 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be suprised to learn how much Wikipedia is run for its insiders in the fashion of those sorts of silencing maneuvres and myriad other ways. And they'll condone the hating of those who aren't on the inside because of merely what their name is rather than what they contribute. Remember it when you vote.74.200.75.5 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The block was a mistake on my part and I apologize. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Vast hating in that fashion is of the culture of Wikipedia. How else is it that the likes of you comes to be one of those exercising the abuse of a degree of authority in it?74.200.75.5 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you for two weeks so you can come back when the election is over. --Hemlock Martinis 03:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Would greater arrogance and a more corrupted abuse be possible?74.200.75.5 (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
David York, your IP will be blocked if you continue with these snarky comments and accusations of corruption. Please enjoy your holiday in the States but stop with the trouble making else this IP will be blocked again. Hemlock has apologised for his mistake and I suggest that you accept his apology like gentleman and move on. Thanks, Sarah 02:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
More my style to be not silencing others for petty purposes in the first place. What's yours?? Actually .. no, wait .. the answer to that one would already be something widely and well known.74.200.75.5 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry Sarah, but you cannot try and curb this specific editor's opinions. The accusation of corruption was provoked by Hemlock himself, so your block threat is wholly unwarranted. Furthermore, such a block would give out the impression of Wikipedia being a dictatorship which quashes freedom of speech. So, you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting to block this IP. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)