Azure Anteater

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Azure Anteater! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

February 2016

• Note that while my edits were technically in violation of the banning policy, they were completely in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and none of these edits were controversial or disruptive. But thank you for playing internet court. I'm flattered and disgusted that you still care. IT'S BEEN SIX FUCKING YEARS YOU TWATS. --Azure Anteater (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Because the Arbitration Committee is still a fucking joke

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2016 (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.

.

No, but seriously, this isn't what you would call a genuine unblock request; the arbitration committee would have your head if you tried. I just wanted to take a moment of your time to vent. I am, as is fairly obvious, banned user Blu Aardvark. I was banned by the arbitration committee for a period of 1 year approximately 8 years ago. For a while, I spent a lot of time on disruptive behavior. I did it for the lulz. And then I found better things to do with my time and left the Wikipedia community to their circlejerk. A few years ago, I was procrastinating on a writing assignment and decided to create this account, and I edited constructively, although sparsely, for a couple of years. This last week I sent an email to the arbitration committee requesting a review of this ban. The answer I received was tantamount to "fuck you buddy", as is evidenced by the fact that the worthless cunt GorillaWarfare blocked this account because that action was an important use of her time. But I digress.

I am flattered and disgusted that the bureaucracy here actually still gives a fuck. --Azure Anteater (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Evidences

This was was the message I sent to the arbitration committee requesting a ban review:

I am banned user Blu Aardvark. I have, historically, engaged in a long pattern of trolling behavior and vandalism and was, as a result, banned by the Arbitration Committee and by the community. However, I have not engaged in any such behavior for at least 4 years. I would like to have my ban reviewed so that I can integrate back into the community, or, barring that, so that I can edit from a new account without violating the ban policy.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have recently edited Wikipedia under the username Azure Anteater. This a self-identified alternate account with over 100 standing edits (possibly a few deleted edits), all of them non-controversial.

If you are not willing to review my ban at this time, I am disappointed, but I understand. In this scenario, however, I would like to request that my sockpuppet categories be emptied and removed ( , ). I do not feel that these pages serve to the betterment of the Wikipedia project, nor do they serve to identify any problematic behavior problems, but they do contain personally identifiable information.

This was the response I received:

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your appeal. Given your past history of extreme disruption and abuse on this project, as well as your continued sockpuppetry, we will not be granting your unban request.

When contacting this committee or responding to any of our messages, please ensure that arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org is in the "to" or "cc" field of any reply you make to this message. Messages sent only to me or another individual arbitrator may not be read.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Molly (GorillaWarfare)

This was an additional request I sent:

It is unfortunate that you have come to this consensus, as I feel that I have been making positive contributions to the project, clearly recognizable from my contributions.

Regardless, however, I understand why some would be reluctant to accept me back, and therefore I will not petition again.

What of the additional portion of my request, however? If I am not free to contribute to your project, I would like to exercise my right to disappear from it. Please vacate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Blu_Aardvark and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Blu_Aardvark. These pages no longer serve any purpose but to harass me as an individual. I have long ago ceased engaging in disruptive behavior. You yourselves bear witness to this.

This is the response I recieved: