User talk:Zdarlight

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).

Zdarlight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First, this account has been created so i could edit. Now i join IRC and get booted without any reason. Please do run a checkuser before doing any wild accusations.

Decline reason:

CU is not used to prove innocence. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:33, 23 January 2012 (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.

No, Zalgo, there's a reason you keep getting booted, and if you stopped and really thought about it, you'd realize that if you pulled that stunt on any other channel they'd have +b on speed-dial to keep you off of it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who the fuck are you calling Zalgo? Just run a checkuser. --Zdarlight (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all there is to ask? Just run a checkuser on this account. --Zdarlight (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which you're preparing for and thus prepared to cheat. Checkusers aren't as stupid as you give them credit for, and in fact will not entertain "prove my innocence" checks on one's request. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, i bring up WP:LIBEL because accusing someone of being someone else breaks all policy.--Zdarlight (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if there's evidence that supports the accusation. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say who or what i am. You are being very rude. --Zdarlight (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it does, as a new user (That was your second edit total) is extremely unlikely to be booted off of IRC unless he was a returning banned user to begin with or he was being obnoxious. That, coupled with the demands for a Checkuser above, are enough for me - and apparently for a few administrators - to satisfy the duck test. A Checkuser is unnecessary, and given that you've been demanding it, pointless (since you wouldn't be demanding it unless you were prepared to guarantee an "unrelated" result. This is why Checkusers will never run "prove my innocence" checks). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a official rule, it's not a official policy. I myself am familiar with IRC. --Zdarlight (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would be surprised how much weight WP:DUCK actually carries. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your signature sucks. --Zdarlight (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]