User talk:QuattroBajeena
Invitation to reconsider
I have invited you to reconsider your tag on Malleus's talk page, which i've explained there was uncalled-for, and appeared to assume less good faith than was exhibited by the editor you have criticised. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Still not sure how this whole responding to talk page concerns thing works so I'll let you know here too that I responded on Malleus' page.--QuattroBajeena (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Strange you don't know the basics, but you know all about ArbCom, and enough about wikipedia's system of governance to vote on a proposal for its amendment after only 11 edits. Just who do you think you're fooling? --Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've never claimed to know "all about ArbCom", please stop putting words in my mouth. I just read the link to deadminship cases in the CDA navbox and made my own conclusions. It's a shame you apparently still haven't improved your civility after the concerns raised at your two failed RFAs, Malleus.--QuattroBajeena (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Strange you don't know the basics, but you know all about ArbCom, and enough about wikipedia's system of governance to vote on a proposal for its amendment after only 11 edits. Just who do you think you're fooling? --Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- A shame for who? I often thank my lucky stars that they both failed. How many RfAs have you had under one of your alternate names? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Keep digging that hole.--QuattroBajeena (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- A shame for who? I often thank my lucky stars that they both failed. How many RfAs have you had under one of your alternate names? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Do not alter or remove other editors' comments, please. Do not violate WP:3RR on this or any other page. --Moni3 (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
You are blocked indefinitely as an obvious sock. Please find a more constructive way to make your point. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
QuattroBajeena (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a sock. How does voting in one RFC lead to me getting accused of being someone else and blocked? Please run CheckUser on me so we can get this stupidity over with.--QuattroBajeena (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser is unable to prove a negative. Based on behavioral evidence, this block is valid. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
QuattroBajeena (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please, I'm not a sockpuppet. Hersfold says that all of my edits match this Mattisse guy's but won't tell me which edits or how, could someone at least explain all this evidence against me everyone but me sees? As far as I can tell he's focused on Did You Know which I've never edited. So far the only similarity seems to be conflict with Malleus, and based on his incivility it seems like that could be true for a lot of people. Couldn't CheckUser at least show that we have two completely different IPs? That should be enough.--QuattroBajeena (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
{{subst:Sorry, but your behavior clearly matches that of Matisse, who is known to use sockpuppets to continue her disputes. Checkuser cannot prove innocence, but your editing habits look exactly like Matisse. }} The WordsmithCommunicate 05:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
QuattroBajeena (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not Mattisse. I'm not even a her. I can send someone a picture of myself or something to prove that. Please, you're all mistaken. And again, how do my editing habits look like hers? I don't see any similarities but I've only briefly looked because I had no idea who Mattisse was until I was accused of and then wrongfully blocked for supposedly being her. This isn't even a continued dispute, you can clearly see where this started with Malleus' incivility towards me at the RFC:CDA.--QuattroBajeena (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Behavioral evidence alone makes it clear you are a NOT a new Wikipedia user. Further behavioral evidence also makes the connection clear as to which former Wikipedia user you are. If you deny these conclusions,then contact the Ban Appeals Subcommittee at the email address noted at WP:BASC. Jayron32 04:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
I've provided the picture mentioned above in the unblock IRC channel.
- You deleted the answer to your question, here.
- Anyone can send a picture of anything anywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)