User talk:Dracula the v.o.d.

Thought you should know,

Although you can remove what ever you want at any time, it is not yours. It is owned by the wikimedia foundation and therefore subject to all it's policies.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is besides the point. Another user took control of the talk page for my user. Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, raise the ANI, see if it gets you anything, it won't.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or is your threat empty? I'm waiting.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will if you continue not to assume good faith. You are creating conflict over nothing. Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it will go nowhere, not once did I not assume good faith. I assumed you were a new user, so I notified you of one of the relevant policies to user talk pages, N was wrong to edit war, but the page isn't yours. Go on, file it, I'm waiting, but here is fair warning: it won't get anywhere, there is nothing wrong with notifying a new user of relevant policies.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found your tone used did not assume good faith. You think I am some new user, but clearly I know how to use Wikipedia and am aware of most policies. Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're someone's sockpuppet account, although not used abusively, or you used to be an IP editor, it doesn't really matter. There is nothing wrong with assuming that an account registered yesterday is new. As to my tone, you're reading too far into things, there was no such tone present.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am no sockpuppet. I lost the password to my previous account I used 6 months ago, therefore I created a new account. Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is the very definition of a sockpuppet: an alternate account. It doesn't matter for what reason it was created, it is still and alternate account. Further, your post to Jimbo's talk page did not speak of that of a seasoned editor. So, are you going to file your ANI report, or is that just some baseless threat?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make it bad that I have created a new account? And I am not going to file an ANI as of yet because you have toned down. Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it did, I just said that it classified as a sockpuppet, as a sockpuppet is an alternate account. There are two types of sockpuppets. Those used properly, and those used abusively. I commonly deal with the latter, but that is besides the point, I already clarified that your use of a sockpuppet was not abusive, so I don't see the reason to this post.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I'm giving you a level 2, as you said that you are aware of policies, you should know better than to attack me. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive sockpuppetry

You have been accused of being an abusive sockmaster, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dracula the v.o.d. for evidence.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses were so quick before, something wrong?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is because I signed out. Anyhow, what I wrote on your talkpage was in my view, not a personal attack. It was more a joke if anything! Don't take any offense but fair enough, if you view it as a personal attack I am sorry. And now, I am obviously blocked for sock puppetry. Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you took the time to read the spi, you would have known that you were

Confirmed to be abusing multiple accounts, that the witch toenails account was yours, and that abusing multiple accounts is not allowed, Mjp2515.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit, all those accounts are mine except for Mjp2515. Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you would like to tell us who your master account is. Witch toenails was used for nothing but vandalism, and goodhand-badhand accounts are not allowed.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a master. I told you, I have used all those accounts randomly as a whole bunch except for Mjp2515. Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us your first registered account here, then.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia and I lied about having an account 6 months ago. I created this accounts all together as one bunch. Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe you lied when you had knowledge of policy.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I signed up, I did not want to come across as a new user so I read some of the guidelines so that user would think I was an experienced user. Obviously it did not work. Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what, I have created a user page about you on the Scottish wikipedia and you can't do nothing about it! http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daedalus969 Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

Dracula the v.o.d. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I really did not do anything wrong besides post "EAT TOENAILS" on a user talk page which was a joke not to be taken seriously. Perhaps instead of unblocking you could set my block to expire in a specific time period. Thank you. Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I concur with Brandon's results. Abusing multiple accounts is grounds for an immediate indefinite block. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:45, 3 September 2009 (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.

Unblock request I created a page on User:Daedalus969

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).

Dracula the v.o.d. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I created a page on User:Daedalus969 and you can't do nothing about it!: http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daedalus969 Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Actually, I can have a steward or checkuser hardblock your IP over there just by emailing our list. Go away. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:42, 4 September 2009 (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.