User talk:LittleBusters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: "My account has been declared a "vandal account" and at the very least, I would like to know why. If this is in regards to Mitch Hedberg - 1. It was deleted and 2. He really was falling apart near the end from drug abuse and I provided a link the webpage that detailed the fall. 2. If this is in regards to Kit Seelye - is Media Matters not considered a fair source? I know Fox News and other conservative talking heads have accused them of taking things out of context but I have never seen actual evidence suggesting that their information is wrong. I say this because if this in regards to criticism of her coverage of Al Gore, the criticism is genuine and she along with Cici Connelly of the Washington Post were criticized for slanted coverage. I apologize for the length of this but I would basically want to know why I have been declared a vandal by Jimmy Wales himself and if there is anything I can do. Thank you for your time."

Decline reason: "Jimbo has a unique role on this site in that his actions are sometimes those of just another admin and sometimes those of our "god-king" (he created wikipedia, so ultimately has some measure of unreviewable decision-making power). It's not clear in what role he made this decision, but he is so busy that a response to your unblock request will probably take some time. In any case, I think the reason he blocked you is that you inserted negative material about a person into that person's article. Recently, we've had stepped-up enforcement of the Biographies of living persons policy that has effected even the biographies of dead people like Hedberg. Probably Jimbo doesn't see the blogcritics reference as a reliable source and blocked you for that reason. I don't see any other substantive edits from this account. Have you edited with another account? It's possible he thinks you're a sockpuppet. For now, I'll procedurally decline this to remove it from the category.— Chaser - T 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC) This unblock decline is now substantive, too.--Chaser - T 02:55, 24 June 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.


I'll post a note on Jimbo's talk page requesting further information. --- J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC) I agree. I don't understand why Jimbo has blocked you. I have checked all your edits; and none of them seem bad. At least not enough to get blocked. Maybe Jimbo was in a bad mood or something? It's not like him at all. I'll see what I can do; also. Thanks, Meldshal42 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think so. I guess LittleBusters is dead. Pity.

Thank you very much fellows. I really appreciate it.

Err, Chaser, I know Jimmy Wales is the the Almighty, the Amun-Ra, the Odin, King, the acne, pinnacle and zenith (thank you 7th grade english) but wouldn't enter the same, unending slope if I end up opening another account and get branded as a sockpuppet? This by the way leads to address your question: I did open another account once. I however forgot the password and haven't used it in months. I never really used it anyway, most of my edits have been through the unregistered access. Most of the time, I edit cartoon articles like Moral Orel - which I would like to add, I have almost single handedly kept up to date though I always enjoy reading the others polishing out my errors or provide better flow. I was suspended once - and I know you're eyes may roll at this - I don't blame you, it is the internet but I swear that I have never put in any false or erroneous information about anybody real or fictional and the suspension was only a week long so it may have been due to simply my school's IP address at the time. I hope this information is relevant.

Sorry, the point is - thank you very much for all your assistance, I really appreciate it.

The short answer is I don't know. WP:SOCK is meant to prohibit things like stacking the vote or using a sockpuppet to evade policy. It's also used to stop re-incarnations of banned users who have done really awful things on our site. We are quick to indefinitely block accounts that just vandalize because we want to get rid of them as quickly as possible, but it's probably common that people come back under new accounts to make positive contributions to the encyclopedia. We're a pragmatic bunch, and the most important thing is producing a good encyclopedia, even if we sometimes have to ignore the rules to do it. Did that answer your question?--Chaser - T 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
An admin with oversight privs has stepped in to comment on Jimbo's page that there were problematic edits made which have now been oversighted. None of us regular admins have any visibility on that but from the sound of things, that's a serious issue - Alison ☺ 20:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Alison - let me go into detail about the edits I have made under this account: 1. a blog critics article about a particularly horrific Mitch Hedburg show and the article and the comments corroborated with what a friend told about a similar though less unpleasant show although that is hearsay but they seemed to be truthful. 2. Kit Seelye, unless Media Matters has been declared a compromised source (and I have seen no one other than right wing talk hosts caught in the act trying to pin them as biased), her articles concerning Al Gore have been called into question and when a prominent media watchdog group refers to them as a "serial misinformer" - it seems to be pertinent information, if at the very least belonging under a criticism box. As for Moral Orel, I keep checking what I write with the episodes played on Adult Swim fix.

Forgive me, I'm a bit slow at grasping things but "oversighted edits"? What you see is what I did, at least under this user name and even then, I would swear it on all that I hold holy (which I admit is small given my agnosticism but still) I have never deliberately changed articles to make someone look better or worse. I believe that in order to understand the individuals who make a difference, we need to see the complete picture: the best of qualities and worst of qualities and learn how they impact the indviduals and subjects that we enjoy writing about.

Information on oversight is at Wikipedia:Oversight. We can't see some of the edits you're talking about because they've been removed from even sysops' view. Look at Special:Contributions/LittleBusters to see what I mean. There are probably some things missing. Without being able to see the edits, we can't pass judgment on the block, so we trust the blocking admin to have blocked correctly. In this case it's Jimbo, which is enough said.--Chaser - T 22:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What User:Chaser said, basically. About a dozen people only can see your edits and, as they're hidden from us, we cannot make a judgement call on this block. And one thing, please do not post the comments here!! or they, too, will be oversighted. Note also, that posting hearsay is not allowed - see WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:RS to understand what policy allows here (sorry for the acronyms!). Still, you deserve a fair shake of the stick on this one so I'll see if I can prod Jimbo into looking into it some more, or at least providing some detail - Alison ☺ 22:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok - I sent a private message to Jimbo. See how things go. However, this is the most I can do for you here and will not be unblocking. Given the circumstances, I cannot - Alison ☺ 22:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This one was pretty simple. The account had exactly 3 edits. One of them was blatantly libellous to the point of being clearly vandalistic. Blocking an account with only 3 edits is not materially different from blocking an ip number, with the side benefit of minimizing collateral damage. This is not a very interesting case.--Jimbo Wales 02:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
That settles that, then. Case closed - Alison ☺ 02:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)