{{User talk:CygnetSaIad/Header}}
I'm intrigued. Under which one of these reasons are you creating a second account? You haven't made any edits other than talking to one person is all, and it'd be nice if you declared yourself as a sock. Cheers, HawkerTyphoon 22:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
{{
unblock}}
Oops, hit save by mistake. Will complete in a few minutes. -
CygnetSaIad 03:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Block log
Suggest the reviewing admin look over User_talk:Cyde#Robotic_deletions first. Then I'd ask exactly which blocked user Cyde claims me to be, and ask what this claim is based upon. There's also the User:CygnetSalad page to review, where my mistakes (and why there are two) are detailed.
Cheers,
CygnetSaIad 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
(post-script) Thinking that a "neutral" account asking neutral questions would work was probably the biggest mistake, but *shrug* I was trying to be diplomatic.
I've unblocked this for now since I didn't see a good reason for the block. However I'm pretty sure there's at least a couple people watching this, so if this user does something actually blockable, I'd not be suprised to see another block applied (and certainly would not object, of course). Friday (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, clearly this approach was a disaster. I suppose since I (in the guise of my real account) take all critisicm/comments as respectfully as possible, I presumed that others might do the same. I was trying to divorce the issues from the people, based upon the presumption that I might be part of the problem in communication. Perhaps though the fault cannot be evenly portioned out like that...
Not to even start with my worse-than-neophyte mistakes of two accounts, forgetting the password, and a confusing doppleganger.
CygnetSaIad 05:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
CygnetSaIad 06:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The experiment sounded like a good idea although I have to wonder why you thought your "real" account might bring along baggage. Presumably you are an admin who has some sort of negative reputation or some sort of bad history with Cyde.
I do think Cyde over-reacted but you contributed to it by starting with a question that raised his suspicions. Perhaps you should have stated your case from the beginning by laying your cards out on the table and saying "It appears that you are using a bot to perform sysop functions. This is generally considered to be a bad idea." Maybe Cyde would have given you a more forthcoming explanation or maybe the very idea of a sock asking a question is unacceptable to him.
It shouldn't matter who is asking the question except if it's a sock because the motives of using a sock are inherently questionable.
I don't claim to know the perfect way to accomplish what you want but perhaps asking for an advocate would have worked. I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing that advocates do but maybe they should.
-- Richard 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
{{User talk:CygnetSaIad/Header}}
I'm intrigued. Under which one of these reasons are you creating a second account? You haven't made any edits other than talking to one person is all, and it'd be nice if you declared yourself as a sock. Cheers, HawkerTyphoon 22:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
{{
unblock}}
Oops, hit save by mistake. Will complete in a few minutes. -
CygnetSaIad 03:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Block log
Suggest the reviewing admin look over User_talk:Cyde#Robotic_deletions first. Then I'd ask exactly which blocked user Cyde claims me to be, and ask what this claim is based upon. There's also the User:CygnetSalad page to review, where my mistakes (and why there are two) are detailed.
Cheers,
CygnetSaIad 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
(post-script) Thinking that a "neutral" account asking neutral questions would work was probably the biggest mistake, but *shrug* I was trying to be diplomatic.
I've unblocked this for now since I didn't see a good reason for the block. However I'm pretty sure there's at least a couple people watching this, so if this user does something actually blockable, I'd not be suprised to see another block applied (and certainly would not object, of course). Friday (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, clearly this approach was a disaster. I suppose since I (in the guise of my real account) take all critisicm/comments as respectfully as possible, I presumed that others might do the same. I was trying to divorce the issues from the people, based upon the presumption that I might be part of the problem in communication. Perhaps though the fault cannot be evenly portioned out like that...
Not to even start with my worse-than-neophyte mistakes of two accounts, forgetting the password, and a confusing doppleganger.
CygnetSaIad 05:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
CygnetSaIad 06:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The experiment sounded like a good idea although I have to wonder why you thought your "real" account might bring along baggage. Presumably you are an admin who has some sort of negative reputation or some sort of bad history with Cyde.
I do think Cyde over-reacted but you contributed to it by starting with a question that raised his suspicions. Perhaps you should have stated your case from the beginning by laying your cards out on the table and saying "It appears that you are using a bot to perform sysop functions. This is generally considered to be a bad idea." Maybe Cyde would have given you a more forthcoming explanation or maybe the very idea of a sock asking a question is unacceptable to him.
It shouldn't matter who is asking the question except if it's a sock because the motives of using a sock are inherently questionable.
I don't claim to know the perfect way to accomplish what you want but perhaps asking for an advocate would have worked. I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing that advocates do but maybe they should.
-- Richard 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)