User talk:Master of the Oríchalcos

Hi

The influence outside of the Shaolin is covered in detail in the article. The sources include The Method of Chinese Wrestling By Tong Zhongyi, Tim Cartmell. Published 2005. North Atlantic Books. 229 pages ISBN 1556436092. The article covers influences on Chinese wrestling and as such is not limited to the Shaolin. I thought I should bring it to your attention. Best wishes, _{Freedom skies| talk}  01:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sources. LionheartX

Last chance

Hi, It looks like you might get your chance. For all our sakes, don't blow it.

My advice is to please stay away from Certified Gangsta, and any and all pages he chooses to edit. It's not worth you getting in a fight with him. There are plenty of other people who will revert any mistakes he makes. Never revert anyone, never complain about anyone, never argue with anyone. If action is needed, come to me, talk to me, and I'll help you take it. And it's probably a good idea to change your settings to allow other users to email you. Read what Nlu said [1] carefully, and follow it. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take the advice above and the advice given by Nlu. I'll also change my settings soon to allow other users to email me. Regards, LionheartX 07:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Now would be a good time to change your email settings. And one more piece of advice, if you are ever tempted to give your opinion about another wikipedian, or make any comment about any another wikipedian, don't. It isn't worth it. If what you want to say is obvious to everyone, then it's obvious. If it's not obvious, then someone might take offense, and we don't want that. Good luck, you know where to find me if you need me. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll follow your advice and change my email settings soon. Regards, LionheartX 10:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Just a note on wikilinking, it's generally only done the first time something is mentioned in an article. For eg, in this case [2] it wasn't useful to link Japan because it was already linked further up. Even if it wasn't, it probably still wasn't necessary, because we don't usually wikilink common terms. People already know what Japan is, and they know we'll have an article on it. A wikilink says "hey, I don't mean to interrupt, but did you know we have an article about this!" So it's the more obscure stuff, such at the 'Battle of X' or 'Commandant Y' or the 'Theory of Z' that benefit from wikilinking. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC) PS. And you really should use edit summaries each and every time, even if all you say is "wikilinking" or "grammer" or whatever.

I'll try to remember the note about linking and use edit summaries more often. LionheartX

thanks for trying to improve "Foreign influence in chinese martial arts" article

Alas, it appears that you have entered half way in a conversation. if you would read the discussion, you will discover the vast amounts of discussion on what has been written on this article and the questions of bias of the article. Kennethtennyson 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for improving the article. LionheartX

Question

What does Wikiproject Japan have to do with Suikoden? Other than the fact that the Suikoden games were made in Japan, of course... I just don't see a Japanese history and culture expert necessarily knowing that much about the series. Mario, maybe, but if you consider that Dragon Quest, a huge cultural phenomenom in Japan doesn't have the Wikiproject Japan tag... even if it's appropriate for the main articles, it seems less likely to be important for each character article.

Not a huge issue, of course, just curious. SnowFire 20:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just thought it would be helpful to include the project. Regards, LionheartX

Arunachal Pradesh

This is in reference to your recent edits to Arunachal Pradesh. There is no need to over-emphasize the dispute between India and China over Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet in the lead paras of the concerned article. The material you added belongs to the history section. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 11:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I was trying to keep it in line with the other disputed regions articles such as Dokdo. LionheartX

Indefinite block

Below is a cross post of my response to your petition: Yes I can. And for the record I'll explain why I'm indef blocking you. First, it isn't Wikistalking to monitor the edits of a known problem user. You're an admitted sockpuppet of an indef blocked account so you were extraordinarily lucky to have been allowed to return at all. Under those circumstances you should expect that your edits would be scrutinized and that unexplained edits could be reverted on site. Policy specifically allows reversion on sight as a remedy for block evasion. The second accusation, that CertifiedGangtsa forum shopped for admins, also misrepresents the actual discussion. The editor requested advice about whether to seek arbitration, which is entirely reasonable under the circumstances. Arbitration is not necessary. Clearly you're going out of your way to impugn the integrity of a user in good standing after you have forfeited your privilege of editing here at all. Per WP:SOCK. Durova^Charge! 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with this situation before blocking me. I retract my accusation about the "wikistalking" and "forum shopping", I didn't know he was allowed to do that. I apologize for the accusations and it will not happen again. However, those accusations are NOT grounds for an indefinite block. I am NOT trying to "impugn the integrity of a user". For the record, OTHER USERS have complained with that user as well and my edit to Durova's talk page was NOT trying to "impugn his integrity". See this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Certified.Gangsta, FOUR SEPARATE users complained about this user's behavior.

I also want to point out that I am NOT an "admitted sockpuppet of an indef blocked account". I am NOT a sockpuppet, and User:LionheartX is my MAIN and ONLY account. My block log says: "Admitted sockpuppet of indef blocked user" which is VERY misleading. I am NOT a sockpuppet of indef blocked user. User:LionheartX is not a sockpuppet; It is MY MAIN and ONLY account. I previously requested another admin Nlu (talk · contribs) to block my original account RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so that I could switch over to use LionheartX (talk · contribs) as my MAIN and ONLY account because I had lost access to the User:RevolverOcelotX account due to a loss password.[3] Please see the block log and the evidence below and these very recent discussion WP:ANI thread here: User_talk:Nlu#More_Guardian_Tiger_socks:_User:LioneartX, User_talk:BenAveling/Archive2#Requesting_your_help, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion. I was allowed by User:Nlu to have another account because I lost access to the original one. See below for evidence. Please unblock me ASAP.

For clarity's sake, This is NOT "block evasion". My original account RevolverOcelotX, was BLOCKED solely so that I could switch accounts to this LionheartX account because I have lost access to my RevolverOcelotX account. LionheartX should be considered my MAIN account rather than a sock. Also I was NOT trying to "impugn the integrity of a user in good standing". I was indef block for making this following post. That is hardly "impugning" ANYBODY. Here is the EXACT POST I made to Durova's talk page that Durova choose to block me for. A few minutes after I made that post, Durova indef blocked me without any warnings or anything. That post I made DID NOT violated ANY site policy and DOES NOT justifies an indef block. This is pure abuse of admin powers by Durova. I request a neutral and uninvolved admin take a deep look into this matter and lift the block. Thank you. LionheartX 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, please explain your block. See this long ANI discussion here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion. I was not banned. Also see this [4]. I was allowed by User:Nlu to have another account because I lost access to the original account. Nlu said THAT in the block long. "Pursuant to user request to have another account (User:LionheartX))". There is NO WP:SOCK violation here. I'm NOT going out of your way to impugn the integrity of a user in good standing. There are other users who have disputes with the user in question. Please give the diffs where I violated site policy. I request an neutral admin to unblock me because there is no WP:SOCK or any other violations here. LionheartX 14:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't wriggle out of this through a semantic distinction between indefinite blocking and banning. The circumstances of how you started this particular account are irrelevant. Whether or not WP:SOCK was applicable originally, it's been in force since the moment any account of yours was indef blocked, and further Wikilawyering is pointless. Durova^Charge! 14:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly Durova, I've SEEN the friendly discussion between you and Certified.Gangsta and I question your ability to remain fair and neutral in this situation. There is definately a distinction between blocking and banning. Another Administrator Physicsq210 even says so here. [5]. Durova, you haven't even explain the reason why my account was indef blocked. My other account was blocked simply because it was a sock without the legalities of a sock being considered. MANY people use different accounts and they are NOT blocked automatically. I explained a multiple times that I am NOT a sock. This is MY MAIN AND ONLY ACCOUNT. I demand my block be lifted and a reasonable explanation be provided. Thanks. LionheartX 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Look Durova, please consult another admin such as User:Nlu about this. This situation is more complicated than it looks. I have ALREADY went through this whole situation multiple TIMES on User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's and WP:ANI. I URGE you to review ALL the evidence before hastily indef blocking me. This account User:LionheartX is my MAIN AND ONLY account. It is NOT a sock. My old main account User:RevolverOcelotX was blocked so that I could use this account. Please familiarize yourself with this situation and unblock me ASAP. LionheartX 14:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And to the reviewing admin, LionheartX specifically admitted to being the same editor as indef blocked Guardian Tiger and Nlu specifically advised me not to regard the lenient decision as binding. User_talk:Durova#Requesting_your_help Durova^Charge! 14:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that my LionheartX account was NOT a sock of the Guardian Tiger account. Please see this for a full explanation: User_talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's#Socks_or_reincarnations.3F. My main account User:RevolverOcelotX was NOT blocked until very recently because I was given a chance to switch accounts. The LionheartX account should be considered my main account rather than a sock. Nlu was aware of the indef blocked account Guardian Tiger when he made his decision. I was given another chance by Nlu and other admins on ANI to contribute positively. LionheartX

And User:Guardian Tiger is a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:RevolverOcelotX. Whatever species you claim to be this week, you're cornered, and the cat and mouse game is over. Durova^Charge! 14:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, please consult another admin such as User:Nlu about this. I don't know what you mean by "cat and mouse game" but can you KINDLY EXPLAIN what site policy I have violated while I have used this account. It seems I am blocked because solely because I have used another account in the past rather than ANY policies I have violated while I have been on this account. I was posting in good faith when I posted that message to your talk page. Alright look, the Guardian Tiger account was indef blocked because of a few mistakes I had made on that account but those same mistakes would not have got my main account indef block. While User:Guardian Tiger was blocked, my MAIN account User:RevolverOcelotX was NOT BLOCKED until VERY recently because the community decided to give me another chance. I don't even know which policy violation I violated to deserve this block. This account LionheartX is my MAIN and ONLY account. I am NOT a sockpuppet. This situation is MORE complicated than it looks. I have NEVER used any of the accounts AT THE SAME TIME. See this: User_talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's#Socks_or_reincarnations.3F. They are NOT socks. In FACT my main account User:RevolverOcelotX was NOT EVEN blocked until Nlu blocked it so that I could use LionheartX. I have ALREADY went through this whole situation multiple TIMES on User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's and WP:ANI. I URGE you to review ALL the evidence before hastily indef blocking me. This account User:LionheartX is my MAIN AND ONLY account. It is NOT a sock. My original main account User:RevolverOcelotX was blocked so that I could use this account. Please familiarize yourself with this situation and unblock me ASAP. User:Guardian Tiger blocked without the legitimate uses of a sock being considered. I had lost access to my original account User:RevolverOcelotX which was why I had to use Guardian Tiger.

I reiterate: my main account User:RevolverOcelotX was blocked for ONLY ONE REASON so that I could use User:LionheartX as my MAIN and ONLY account. I have NOT violated any WP:SOCK or ANY other policies since I was given a a chance to prove I can contribute positively by the community on WP:ANI. Durova, if you think I have violated whatever policy on my LionheartX account since your last message to me, then please provide the diffs. Otherwise this block is unjustified and I request a neutral and objective admin to lift it.

This thread here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion explains VERY CLEARLY this whole situation. Durova, I'm apologize for posting those accusations on your talk page and I would like to retract them. I DIDN'T know that doing so would result in me getting indef block. I have not violated ANY CREDIBLE site policy and I am NOT a sock. I will promise to stay away from Certified.Gangsta and stay out of trouble. Durova, please unblock me or take this to WP:ANI. Another admin HAD GIVEN ME ANOTHER CHANCE to user this account. I have NOT VIOLATED ANY POLICY while on this account. I have made MANY valuable contributions on this account and I wish to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Please give me another chance to prove I can contribute as an editor in good standing. Thank you. LionheartX 14:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the situation. Unfortunately for you, you didn't take my repeated cautions to heart. I made it perfectly clear from the outset how I interpreted the situation and how I expected you to respond. Regardless of whether you say you respected my guidance, your actions demonstrate that you didn't, and you waited until I indef blocked you to raise this flurry of objections. There is very very little here that hasn't been said before, and none of the remainder carries any substance. This reminds me of crime in the world of fine art: they cover up a theft by passing an artwork through many dealers and generating a paper trail so complex that it looks legitimate to a novice and hopelessly tangled to a specialist, but the bottom line remains: the supposed owner has no right to possession at all. Durova^Charge!

Please Durova, I now question your ability to investigate this as an objective and neutral admin. This block is not in line with theblocking policy. I am NOT aware of any policy violations I have made on my LionheartX account. If you think differently, then I MUST request you provide the relevant diffs. I was trying to take your repeated cautions to heart but I was indef blocked before I could even do that or even before I was warned about it. I hope you can see why I am so frustrated and angry here: you post your guidance on your talk page, I then posted on your talk page THANKING YOU for the above guidance, then suddenly, without any reason or warning, I was indef blocked. I'm not sure what you mean by "I expected you to respond", but the FACT remains that I was not even GIVEN A CHANCE to before I was indef blocked. I also DON'T KNOW what you mean by "actions demonstrate that you didn't", can you explain that? I clearly did not violate any site policies that would justify this block after you left your message, although if you think I did indeed violate site policies, then PLEASE PROVIDE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND DIFFS. I request you unblock me or take this matter to WP:ANI. Thank you, LionheartX 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's simpler for an unblock reviewer to follow this discussion when you add your own responses beneath mine rather than altering statements to which I've already responded, but perhaps confusion is your intent. It appears to be your preferred tactic. You chose to petition me for action this morning so you can hardly expect anyone to take you seriously by claiming now that I was too biased to take action. You select whatever portion of the evidence might seem to support your requests, when viewed superficially, and you spin it heavily. Did you really think you could call Nlu's decision definitive without getting a rebuttal from me with evidence that it wasn't? The game's over. The only thing you're accomplishing now is reducing the chances that I would support a legitimate unblock discussion if you actually sat on the sidelines for a few months and e-mailed a proper request to have your privileges reinstated. Durova^Charge! 15:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I apologize for putting my statements in between yours. I apologize for any confusion I have cause in doing this but I assure you that it was NOT my intent. Clearly you can see why I am so frustrated and angry that I was indef blocked WITHOUT ANY WARNING. I suspect your actions are no longer that of a neutral and objective admin. I was NOT petitioning you for action this morning. For clarity's sake, here is the EXACT POST I made to Durova's talk page before I was blocked. I had NO IDEA that making that post would get me an indef block. Surely that post was not a policy violation. I was simply thanking Durova for the guidance and asking if what I viewed as harassment by another user is allowed on wikipedia. Surely, Durova could've that point to me rather than indef blocking my account for NO CREDIBLE POLICY VIOLATIONS. I apologize if that post justify an indefinite block in Durova's mind and wish to retract it and apologize for it.

I find Durova's statements "viewed superficially, and you spin it heavily" to be extremely biased for an administrator. I respectfully think you are abusing your admin privileges in blocking me. If you wanted to rebuttal Nlu's decision and block me, then why didn't you block me when Nlu posted on your talk page? Why did you choose to block me today? Please explain to me what has change since then to justify an indef block? Why do you keep refusing to provide diffs of site policy violations from my LionheartX account that justifies this indef block? Remember this statement: Show me any diff where he violated site policy since my last statement on this matter. I am sure I have not violated ANY SITE POLICY since then. Where is the site policy I have violated since then to justify this block? I reiterate: If you think I violated ANY site policies since your last warning to justify this indef block, then PLEASE PROVIDE THE DIFFS. Otherwise, take this to WP:ANI and other administrator's attention. Thank you. LionheartX 15:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The evidence I have already provided here should be sufficient for an unblock review. Neither noticeboard discussion nor warnings are necessary to implement an indef block under these circumstances per WP:SOCK. This was routine action. Durova^Charge! 15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, how many times do I have to explain that I am NOT a sock and that I am NOT violating WP:SOCK? The User:LionheartX account is my MAIN and ONLY account. [6] This block is not in accords with official blocking policy and is NOT "routine action". LionheartX is my main and only account. There are SIMPLY NO WP:SOCK violations here. Durova claims "noticeboard discussion nor warnings are necessary to implement an indef block" but which edits did I do on this account to deserve an indef block??? Durova refuses to provide DIFFS AND EVIDENCE OF POLICY VIOLATIONS becuase there are none and I have NOT violated any policy. An admin should not only realize his mistakes but also ADMITS THEM. Durova, you have not provided any evidence in the form of diffs at all. Instead, you have continually use blanket statements to hide your lack of evidence. Quite frankly, Durova, I am surprised at your extremely biased actions. I found you through [[Category:Eguor admins]] and you fit none of the principles and discriptions listed in that category. If you truly believe your block was justified, then clearly you would not object to greater scrutiny by the wider community with a discussion on WP:ANI. The fact that you refuse to take this to WP:ANI and provide relevant diffs goes further to prove that this block is unjustified.. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that I did indeed violated site policy on this account. Until then, this block is unjustified and an abuse of your admin powers. I strongly suspect that there was some private correspondence that took place, and in any case is a highly unorthodox method of dealing with these issues. I strongly urge an uninvolved, neutral, and objective admin to lift this block so that I can contribute positively to wikipedia. LionheartX 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's all look at this situation objectively and rationally. In my block log, Durova states, "Admitted sockpuppet of indef blocked user", although Durova was clearly aware of this five days ago. Please note that blocks are preventative, not punitive, and that socks are not automatically blocked per WP:SOCK and I have REPEATEDLY stated that User:LionheartX is NOT a sock, but rather my main and only account. As we can all clearly see, I have NOT been disruptive or violated any policy whatsoever. In fact I've made many valuable contributions to wikipedia since then and have recieve constructive and positive comments from other users as shown above. What then, made Durova, decide to change his mind and indef block me five days after he was aware of this situation?? I have not violated ANY site policy since as proven by simply looking through my contributions. Durova have refused to provide relevant diffs or evidence of ANY site policy violations on this account. Durova have indef block me for making THIS EDIT to his talk page. As we can all see, that edit is DOES NOT violate ANY policy and does not warrant a block. Also, I was never banned. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion for a detailed expanation by several admins. I hope people reading this can see that this block is unjustified and lifted ASAP. LionheartX 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering. While this may be MAIN and ONLY account it is a MAIN and ONLY account created to circumvent an indef block on a previous MAIN and ONLY account. When you get indefinitely blocked, you don't get to continue making new accounts and claiming they aren't socks because they are your only accounts. IrishGuy ^talk 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Irishguy. I want to state that I am NOT wikilawyering. This is a very complicated situation and I urge you to review the evidence in the ANI threads below. My previous MAIN and ONLY account User:RevolverOcelotX (an account in good standing with over 4000 edits) was NOT blocked until only five days ago. But, unfortunately I had lost the password to the User:RevolverOcelotX account and therfore had to make a new account. That's the only reason I made another account, not to circumvent an indef block. I would like to reiterate: There was no indef block on a previous MAIN and ONLY account (RevolverOcelotX) until very recently. The block on that account was for one reason only: to allow me to switch to another account due to a lost password. Administrator Nlu had agreed that I was not socking and to allow me to use User:LionheartX as my current main and only account because I have lost access on the User:RevolverOcelotX account due to a lost password. Please see the dates on the block log. The account User:RevolverOcelotX was blocked on 02:38, 8 March 2007, two days AFTER I created User:LionheartX. Here's the block log: "02:38, 8 March 2007 Nlu (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" (anon. only, noautoblock) with an expiry time of indefinite (Pursuant to user request to have another account (User:LionheartX))" I have not violated any policy or been disruptive since then. Please see the discussion at User_talk:Nlu#More_Guardian_Tiger_socks:_User:LioneartX and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion. This block is unjustified and unsupported by policy. I promise not to create any more accounts. This account is my MAIN and ONLY account and I intend to make useful contributions to wikipedia with it. I want a chance to prove I can contribute constructively and positively to wikipedia. Please lift this block ASAP. Thank you. LionheartX 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the user misrepresents the facts. Contrary to LionheartX's claims, the RevolverOcelot account received numerous blocks.[7] Despite claims to the contrary, this other sockpuppet has also been indef blocked. If the editor wished to contest my interpretation he or she should have done so in response to this analysis and stern caution which went unanswered. The entire defense is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

My strong advice to this user is to sit on the sidelines for three or four months, then e-mail an administrator with a polite request for reinstatement. The community may change its mind then, but further frivolous or misleading arguments may convince me to be a strong opponent of any reinstatement request. It would be in your best interests to earn my support in such a discussion. Durova^Charge! 20:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, please explain how have I misrepresented the facts? I can assure you that this was not my intent. I have already FULLY DISCUSS AND RESOLVED this issue to death with other admins just a few days ago on WP:ANI. Durova, please assume good faith and familiarize yourself with this situation. Among the admins and users who were against the blocking of my main and only account were: User:Picaroon9288, User:bbatsell, User:BenAveling, User:Nlu, User:Shimeru, and User:Sumple[8]; User:Physicq210 said he was neutral on this situation. You can find their statements and positions in the specific WP:ANI thread I linked below; I can fish out the specific diffs if necessary. I urge you to read throughly the following whole discussion threads here: User_talk:Nlu#More_Guardian_Tiger_socks:_User:LioneartX, User_talk:BenAveling/Archive2#Requesting_your_help, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion. The User:RevolverOcelotX account received a total of five blocks. Four of them are minor 24 hours blocks. The fifth block was put in place so that I could switch over to User:LionheartX as my MAIN and ONLY account. The block log says this "02:38, 8 March 2007 Nlu (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" (anon. only, noautoblock) with an expiry time of indefinite (Pursuant to user request to have another account(User:LionheartX))" As for User:Guardian Tiger, it was blocked simply because it was a sock of the original account RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without the legality of a sock being considered. I have stated many times that I am NOT a sockpuppeteer, that User:LionheartX is NOT a sock, and that it is my main and only account. The only reason I even made this account was because I lost access to my main account: User:RevolverOcelotX due to a lost password. Otherwise I would have just simply used User:RevolverOcelotX which was NOT blocked at the time I created User:LionheartX. [9]

For clarity's sake, here is the complete User:RevolverOcelotX block log:

02:38, 8 March 2007 Nlu (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" (anon. only, noautoblock) with an expiry time of indefinite (Pursuant to user request to have another account (User:LionheartX))

01:59, 31 July 2006 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (you (and bonafide hustler) have ended my patiences with these edit wars and attacks on one another)

10:15, 28 July 2006 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Chinease)

06:11, 5 June 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR at Mao: The Unknown Story)

01:42, 22 May 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RRV and warned other user in dispute about 3RRV so need for cautionary talk warning.)

This block logs proves that I am NOT a sock. I was allowed to switch to another account because I lost access to the User:RevolverOcelotX account due to a loss password. Note: the User:RevolverOcelotX account was NOT blocked when the User:LionheartX account was created[10] and NOT blocked until very recently when I request admin Nlu to block it, so that I could switch to User:LionheartX.

This seems to be the edit that Durova indef block me for. I will apologise for making this edit to Durova's talk page and wish to retract it, but certainly that edit does NOT warrant any blocking. According to official policy, blocks are preventative, not punitive. I think we need to keep in mind that blocking is to ensure that basic Wikipedia policies are followed and are not meant to be punitive. I want to reiterate to people reading this that: LionheartX is my main and only account. I promise to follow wikipedia policies and not create any more accounts. As for this this analysis and stern caution, I did not even get a chance to see that response and caution until VERY recently. In fact, I was not even given a chance to get around to answering Durova's caution before I was indef blocked. I was not even given a chance to prove that I was going take your contribute positively and to help build the encylopedia. I intend to stay out of trouble and help build the encyclopedia to the best of my abilities. I was NOT even given that chance before this indef block was placed on me. However, the FACT remains that between the time that Durova posted this message and now, I have NOT violated ANY policies and did NOTHING that warranted an indef block. In fact, I have NOT violated ANY site policy. Period. Clearly, I have tried my best to remain as civil as possible under these pressing circumstances. I reiterate that: LionheartX is NOT a sock but rather my MAIN and ONLY account, that I have NOT violated ANY policy since the discussion threads on WP:ANI, and that this block is NOT justified and is NOT supported by official policy. I am requesting an uninvolved, neutral, and objective admin to lift this block after reviewing all the evidence I have given above. I want a chance to prove that I can contribute positively to wikipedia. Please lift my block ASAP. Thank you. LionheartX 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't get a chance to see it? I posted that statement on March 8 and you edited to the same page four times afterward, also ignoring this response of mine to your threaded discussion in which I referred to the previous warning and summarized its conclusion. If you somehow missed both statements, neither of which I was obliged to provide, you have only yourself to blame. You also appear to have missed my two cautions at this page about my potential opinion in any future community discussion that could reinstate your editing privileges. I happen to be a coauthor of the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline, initiator of the Wikipedia:Community noticeboard, and the editor for whom the Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award was created, which is a way of saying that repetitions of misleading assertions and unsubstantiating evidence tend to have the opposite of the presenter's intended effect upon me, and my assessments tend to carry weight with the community. The Internet has many other websites. You would do well to spend your energies at them. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I'm sorry for not replying to your statements, but I definately was NOT "ignoring" it. I acknowledged your statement, but I didn't know I was obligated to reply to it, especially since it was on your talk page, and not posted on my talk page which I check more often. I definately didn't know that not replying to your statements on your talk page would lead to an indef block by you. I feel it would have been better for you to have posted them on my talk page. Please note that if I didn't reply to it, it doesn't mean I am ignoring them or disrespecting them. Durova, I want to point out that you advise me to do the following, "Seek a mentor through WP:ADOPT. Don't make waves. Help build the encyclopedia. Do something especially positive, if possible. Add line citations to articles or give some good peer review feedback. Start a new article that gets into Did you know? Try to earn a barnstar or two and work your way back toward becoming an editor in good standing." Note: I was NOT EVEN GIVEN A CHANCE to do the take your following advise. In fact, I was about to seek a mentor through WP:ADOPT, build the encylopedia, ect. but I NEVER got the chance before you indef blocked me. Please give me a chance to take your advise and work toward becoming an editor in good standing.

I was fairly busy at the time responding to other admins and to the discussion on WP:ANI. The warnings I was replying to at the time was the ones posted by other admins in the WP:ANI discussion thread here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion. I am aware of the guidelines you coauthored, but I assure you that my intent was NOT to create "misleading assertions and unsubstantiating evidence". I have repeatedly said that, I have NOT violated any policy since your warnings and I have repeatedly ask you to provide relevant diffs or evidence of policy violation from me if you think I did indeed violate policy.

Clearly you can see why I'm so frustrated when I got blocked for making this edit. That edit was not uncivil and did not violate policy. I hope we can have a constructive discussion without threats of blocks or sanctions. I am aware of other websites on the Internet, but I really want to help build this encylopedia and work my way back towards becoming an editor in good standing. I want a chance to prove my intentions as a helpful editor, not as a vandal or edit warrior. I really want to be a part of wikipedia again. Durova, please justify your reasons for blocking me, and provide diffs? This is MY MAIN and ONLY account and I have NOT violated ANY policies. I request the original blocker User:Durova or User:Irishguy who has commented here to reply here and lift as soon as they can. I request that an uninvolved and neutral admin please unblock me ASAP. Please lift this block. Thank you. LionheartX 19:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is anybody going to justify this indef block with any diff where I violated site policy since Durova's last statement on this matter? This is the statement from the blocking admin, Durova before I was blocked: Show me any diff where he violated site policy since my last statement on this matter. There have been NO diffs of ANY site policy violations since Durova's last statement on this matter. Yet, only two days later Durova unilaterally indef blocked me without giving me ANY warning or evidence where I had ANY violated site policy. This suggests to me that some private correspondence took place, and in any case is a highly unorthodox method of dealing with these issues. However, I apologize for any trouble I may have caused and I wish to get legitimately unblocked so that I can contribute to wikipedia positively. I want a chance to prove that I can contribute positively to wikipedia. I welcome a gesture towards unblocking. Thank you, LionheartX 04:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to note that I took Durova's caution very seriously and DID NOT VIOLATE ANY POLICY after he wrote those statements. One comment on Durova's talk page is NOT grounds for a permanent block. I have made many useful contributions here, check my contributions for proof. I have requested that Durova discuss this block with other admins such as Nlu or take this to WP:ANI but he has refused to do so. I believe I have explained this situation VERY CLEARLY above that I am not a sockpuppet and that I have NOT violated any policy. It has been days since I posted the unblock request to my talk page, but it seems to be ignored by other admins. How long is this unblock request going to be ignored? Is any administrator going to help review and unblock my account? Thanks. LionheartX 06:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting review of unjustified block

I request to be unblocked. I am NOT a "sockpuppet of indef blocked user". LionheartX is my MAIN and ONLY account. My original account was blocked recently so that I could use a different account. Please see the full explanation, evidence, and through discussion in the WP:ANI threads below. This situation is more complicated than it looks. User:Durova has unilaterally indef block me and accused me of being a sock, without considering the legitimate uses of alternate accounts. Please note that alternate accounts are NOT blocked automatically. I AM NOT a sockpuppet, and User:LionheartX is my MAIN and ONLY account. My block log says: "Admitted sockpuppet of indef blocked user" which is VERY MISLEADING. User:LionheartX is NOT a sockpuppet; It is MY MAIN and ONLY account. My original account (User:RevolverOcelotX) was blocked for ONLY ONE REASON ONLY: so that I could use ANOTHER account because I had loss access to my previous account. Please see the block log. I previously requested another admin, Nlu (talk · contribs) to block my original account RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so that I could switch over to use LionheartX (talk · contribs) as my MAIN and ONLY account because I had lost access to my User:RevolverOcelotX account due to a loss password.[11] Please see the block log and the following recent discussion on WP:ANI for evidence: User_talk:Nlu#More_Guardian_Tiger_socks:_User:LioneartX, User_talk:BenAveling/Archive2#Requesting_your_help, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Ban-Evasion Unfortunately, I have lost access to my original account RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to a lost password, and I was given another chance by other users and admins on WP:ANI to use my User:LionheartX account as my MAIN and ONLY account.[12] It is important to note that I was NEVER banned or indef block on my original account RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I unfortunately I could not access it due to a loss password. If I could, I would have simply used my previous account which was NOT blocked at the time when I created this account. My only other option to contribute was to create User:LionheartX, which is NOT a sock, but is my MAIN and ONLY account, then I requested another admin to block my original account so that I could use my LionheartX account. This block is not supported by official policy and is not supported by consensus of other admins per the recent discussion on WP:ANI. The discussion in the recent WP:ANI threads above shows that other users and admins decided to let me use User:LionheartX as my MAIN and ONLY account, Here is the relevant discussion. There are no grounds for this unfair block when I HAVE NOT violated ANY site policies at all. I have made many positive contributions on this account and was given a chance by other users and admins to use User:LionheartX as my ONE and ONLY account. I request that an admin read the evidence and discussion in the WP:ANI threads above and unblock my account. I want a chance to prove that I can contribute to wikipedia positively. Please lift unblock me. Thank you. --LionheartX 11:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this a very controversial block, I won't lift this block without further support from the unblock-en-l crew. However, my honest opinion is that Durova's block is a "punitive measure" rather "preventative". Two administrators (BenAveling and Nlu) have agreed to give the identity of "RevolverOcelotX" one last chance to redeem himself by refraining from further editing to Taiwan/China related articles which got his first alternate account blocked in the first place and to refrain from wiki-stalking. The current WP:SOCK debacle have their roots in User:Guardian Tiger being blocked as sock of User:RevolverOcelotX despite the fact no concurrent editing was taking place, but despite that Revolver was essentially forced into incriminating himself by creating more socks to get his message across that he was being blocked for sockpuppetry when it never took place in the first place. As long as LionheartX abides by his parole conditions, I believe he should be given the benefit of the doubt and be unblocked so that he truly has one last chance to reform. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Netsnipe. I posted this unblock request for over six days now without anyone reviewing it. Another administrator Shimeru had also decided to give me a last chance to redeem myself. He posted his conditions here, here, and here. I agree to abide by his conditions to remain on exemplary behavior and refrain from any disruptive behavior. I wish to be unblocked so that I truly has one last chance to reform. I'm not sure who the 'unblock-en-l crew' is? Please keep me informed if there is any activity towards lifting my block. Thanks for the support. --LionheartX 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

By 'unblock-en-l crew' I'm referring to the regulars at unblock-en-l mailing list and those who regularly patrol CAT:RFU. --  Netsnipe  ►  01:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Where is this discussion taking place? Is this a discussion on a talk page or through the mailing list? Please keep me informed. I want a chance to reform and prove that I can contribute positively to wikipedia. Please lift this block as soon as you can. Thanks. --LionheartX 08:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no ongoing discussions about your appeal behind closed doors. It's all right here. I was only casually referring to the group of administrators including myself who regularly review blocks. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'm not sure why this is a very controversial block. Some administrators had already decided to give me a last chance to reform and use LionheartX as my main and only account here[13]. Aren't blocks supposed to be preventive rather than punitive? Since I have not violated any policy since the discussions on ANI, I feel this block should be lifted. I promise to abide by the conditions stated by other administrators here. Please lift this block as soon as you can or when you get further support from the unblock-en-l crew. Thanks. --LionheartX 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Netsnipe, but this is a controversial block. There's certainly justification for an indefinite block here, and yet, I do think an indef block now would be against the spirit of the second chance you've been given. I'm leaving this here in case it helps other admins evaluating the situation, but I'm not taking action myself. Mangojuice^talk 19:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of unblocking. While Durova's block summary is factually correct, several people, including admins Shimeru, Nlu and I, would like to give LionheartX one more chance. He has admitted that he made mistakes under his previous accounts and has asked that this account be left unblocked so he can try to redeem himself. Based on the circumstances, this seems a reasonable request in my eyes. I await comment from Durova. Picaroon 20:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking with a good round of scolding to all involved

Upon further review I'm unblocking this account myself. I'll also add that this whole matter has been handled exceptionally poorly on all sides. LionheartX made a series of shifting assertions and selective quotes that did not hold up to scrutiny, which seriously undermined this user's appeal. Had this editor given an appropriate response to either of the two strenuous cautions I posted to my own userpage this block would never have happened and had this editor given a clear and strictly factual appeal at this page I would have unblocked promptly. Instead this editor's actions were entirely consistent with the smoke-and-mirrors that characterizes a typical frivolous appeal. I, in turn, deserve a good tongue lashing for not having recognized the actual event sequence sooner in spite of these circumstances. Furthermore, I'm disappointed that it took this long after the event for anyone else to follow up and contact me about what I'm surprised to learn is a very controversial block and has been openly described as a punitive action. WP:AGF, please. I've been editing actively and receiving a lot of other Wikipedia e-mail, so there couldn't have been any difficulty contacting me if anyone had tried.

Now to summarize the essentials we're talking about three accounts:

• User:LionheartX
• User:RevolverOcelotX
• User:Guardian Tiger

All three originate with the same user who's had some serious problems adjusting to site standards. Both RevolverOcelotX and Guardian Tiger were indef blocked prior to my imposition of an indefinite block on this account. Yet upon further examination I see the following reasons for the indef blocks:

• RevolverOcelotX: Pursuant to user request to have another account 8 March 2007[14]
• Guardian Tiger: Abusive sock of User:RevolverOcelotX 13 January 2007[15]

Upon close review, the indef block on Guardian Tiger is an unsound application of the WP:SOCK policy since RevolverOcelotX was not actually subject to a block on 13 January 2007. Two reviewers concluded that sockpuppetry was obvious in response to an unblock request. Apparently LionheartX continues to deny being the same person as Guardian Tiger, but that contention is pretty weak in light of the multiple reviews. Nonetheless, since the reviewers analyzed the sockpuppetry rather than the appropriateness of an indef block on that policy basis, my conclusion is that LionheartX is the same editor as Guardian Tiger, yet should not have been indef blocked on that account at that time and will not be unblocked on that account at this time due to a pledge to use LionheartX as a sole account.

Just in case that isn't tangled enough, we also have the indef block on RevolverOcelotX. In itself that's straightforward since the user claims to have lost the password and requested the indef block to change accounts. That's normal procedure, but it complicates discussion of an already complex affair. For these reasons I had gotten the impression that LionheartX was a returning sockpuppet of a legitimately indef blocked account, hence liable to indef blocking at any time, and Nlu had specifically advised me not to regard the decision for leniency as binding. LionheartX's failure to respond to either of my posts that stated my understanding reinforced the impression as did the user's continued responses that did not acknowledge the Guardian Tiger account and responses that used block and ban interchangeably. This all looked like a big pile of hooey (and it very nearly is a big pile of hooey) but the bottom line is that this editor has not been properly indef blocked, except on a technical basis at the RevolverOcelotX account.

So I'm unblocking with the following earnest advice: get thee to mentorship. Otherwise there's a strong likelihood you will get community sitebanned - although not by me. I'm walking away from this whole mess. And to my fellow sysops, please talk to me sooner when a question arises about my decisions. I prefer to be the first to step forward and correct my mistakes. Now somebody else please fix the user page templates. Durova^Charge! 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking my account. Regards, LionheartX 10:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and you have my apologies for the delay. To speak candidly, though, what I'd really like to see you do is use this template. {{Adoptme}} Just copy the double brackets and the word inside as it appears on your screen in reading mode (without the extra characters that would appear in edit mode) and paste it anywhere on this page or your user page. That's how you let the formal mentorship program know that you'd like a helping hand. Someone would probably drop a note here a few days afterward offering to mentor you. You'd start a conversation and see if you're well matched. The two of you take it from there. I hope to see you develop into a valued editor at this project. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I need "adoption", thanks anyway. Best wishes, LionheartX 07:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)