User talk:Billy Chinook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] unblock

Given the nature of the block you need to contact the blocking admin as described in the block message. --pgk(talk) 18:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't trust that admin to be fair. She has a pretty bad reputation. I looked up "blocking policy" to try to find out what a "sleeper account" is, and there was no mention of it. It did say this: Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. Billy Chinook 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well unfortunately unblock requests are really for the more simple cases where the reasons for the block are quite transparent and normaly the unblocks are for where its quite clear the user is blocked by mistake. In this case that isn't true so trust that admin or not you need to contact them to review their reasoning. --pgk(talk) 18:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the reasons for this block are quite transparent. Herschelkrustofsky put an appeal on the Wikipedia Review, asking that someone restore his user page because he is banned. I thought it was a fair request, but when I did it, SlimVirgin reverted me and banned me too. As far as I can see, this is a case where a sysop blocked an editor with whom she was currently engaged in a content dispute (see above.) It seems to me that SlimVirgin is violating the "blocking policy" here. Billy Chinook 19:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if this is your first involvement how is she involved in a content dispute with you? Your actions as you describe have you acting as a self confessed meat-puppet of a banned user. Banned users are prohibited from editing, so any changes they attempt to make are revertable/deletable on sight, as a meat puppet that applies to your edit, so no content dispute involved a simple enforcement of a ban. Similarly the user was banned, sockpuppets (and therefore meatpuppets) come under that category, so blocking of you again is simple enforcement of the ban. Now this could just be an act of foolisheness/naivety on your part, agreeing to "be the hands" of a banned user, but the best person to give further input on that and reconisder the decision is the blocking admin. --pgk(talk) 22:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What is a "meat puppet" and where is it mentioned in Wikipedia:Blocking_policy? I find the term insulting. It seems to me that what you are saying is that no editor can stick up for another editor who is being unjustly harassed. It seems that some admins, even admins who have a very bad reputation, are allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner. Wikipedia's reputation is already in the toilet, and this sort of thing can only make it worse. Billy Chinook 15:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You can see the policy on sockpuppets which also describes meat puppets here, I'm sorry you find it insulting but it a fairly well accepted term for someone who is doing as you describe, acting on the behalf of another user. The section circumventing policy states "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this." Regardin your suggestion that that editor is being unjustly harassed, he was blocked by a ruling of the arbitration comittee a group selected with the support of the community who have looked into his specific case in detail, allowed him to present evidence etc. etc. You should also note that the findings there find that he also used sockpuppets to disrupt wikipedia demonstrated by checks of IP addresses used and similarlity of edits, and that the arbitration comittee ruled any future sockpuppets should be banned indefinitely. But this still isn't getting us anywhere, this is still as I said still a complex situation for which the unblock tag isn't "designed", you need to email the blocking admin. --pgk(talk) 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


I looked at the ruling of the Arbitration Committee. It doesn't say that Herschelkrustofsky's talk page should be blanked, and it certainly doesn't say that I should be banned for trying to un-blank it. That's just SlimVirgin being spiteful -- she's famous for that. And as far as you just meekly going along with it, well, that's another example of why some people think that Wikipedia is ruled by a cabal. Billy Chinook 20:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Trying to insult me certainly doesn't encourage me to believe you were acting in good faith, since you are convinced you are in the right I cannot understand why you are unwilling to email the blocking admin to reconsider. --pgk(talk) 22:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I heard that SlimVirgin is off the project for a while. I would appreciate it if someone would unblock me now. --205.177.246.156 19:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC) {{unblock}}

I agree with pgk. Contact SlimVirgin via e-mail if you disagree with the block, but given the reason for blocking, I'm certainly not going to unblock without hearing from her first. Please stop reposting {{unblock}} on your talk page. Your request for unblock is denied, and if you continue posting it, you will lose the privelege of editing your talk page as well. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)