![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Some of the talk page history that is missing from this page's history can be found here
You really should stop. I honestly don't know why you don't realize that your behavior, particularly your need for repeated "clarifications" at arbitration, is only hours away from getting you actually banned. The committee isn't suggesting that you take a break, its voting unanimously to block you for 6 months. If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia again at any point, I suggest you apologize for becoming a vexatious litigant and restrain yourself from ever editing any arbitration page ever again. Nathan T 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
<-Filing another request once your ban expires will demonstrate you have learned nought from the ban, and they will ban you again. I have offered an alternative proposal at RFAR, I suggest you accept it before it's too late. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you accidentally blanked the whole Amendment request? [1] Ripberger ( talk) 04:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Mythdon, I noticed you don't have email enabled. Would you kindly send an email to me ? – xeno talk 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I have made a couple of comments in a thread on the bottom of my talkpage, which you may or may not have seen, and which may or may not interest you.
My advice to you, for what it is worth, is that you step far away from Wikipedia and focus on others things completely for a long time. I am sorry to see that things have gone so badly wrong for you, and what I have suggested is now the best approach for everyone's sake. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Following the conclusion of the six month site ban, I intend to do the following:
These are things that I feel that should be done following the ban. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I have thought about some additional objectives:
After some thought, I think these are necessary too. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I put a new notice board item up regarding a user who was blocked for outing me this week. He is back editing under a new account (but signing his old user name) before his block is up, resorting to personal attacks/accusations, etc. Thought you would be interested. Bevin bell 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Mythdon is banned until March 2010 and is unable to edit his talkpage, I you want to communicate with him, you could try [ [2]] on the simple wikipedia. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, I just noticed this discussion. Jayron32 took this up with me several days ago, in response to which I acknowledged that my stated rationale was not sufficient to disable talk page editing. However, I believe that this was the right move, notwithstanding my error, because Mythdon was using his talk page to announce his intentions to persist in the behaviour that got him banned once the ban expired. Either he's trolling (my assumption of good faith has been challenged repeatedly by this user) or he's just so completely out to lunch that a complete break from Wikipedia is clearly needed. Of course, any admin may undo my action if consensus appears to be leaning that way. Steve Smith ( talk) 22:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's to you being a better editor in the future! Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back! Powergate92 Talk 21:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
With your last edit at Dazed and Confused (song), did you intend to revert back to the last version by BelowGroundSound, who had earlier blanked the page, or to the prior revision by Alansohn? Just wondering since there were several edits made at practically the same time. Piriczki ( talk) 21:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It is time for this account to have an indefinite break from Wikipedia affairs. The last ArbCom issue which involved you dates back to this ban. I see no sign of an improvement. If you want to appeal against this block, please use the appropriate steps that you are aware of. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Diff: [4]
"His AN/I reports on people he's got no business with was discussed more than enough at his talk page and the point was brought to the attention of the ArbCom during the case..." - Actually, the case had nothing to do with any AN/I reports I had filed, and certainly not any you say "people he's got no business". If any reports I had made prior, during or after the case are "people he's got no business", please explain how? Being uninvolved does not invalidate the report. How does not being involved make the reports disruptive?
"Here we are here with Mythdon invading the AN/I with reports on users involving cases that has nothing to do with him whatsoever. " - Uninvolved doesn't make the reports disruptive, especially not for reports like this (allegation of username violation and this (suspicion of sockpuppetry. I'd like to know how being uninvolved in any of my reports, especially the username and sockpuppetry reports, automatically means the reports are disruptive.
Thanks. — Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This isn't getting anywhere, and I don't see how it will. I will wait for FayssalF's further explanation, and see what happens in the meantime. —
Mythdon
(talk)
(contribs)
04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
|
All answers can be found here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Mythdon ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Not an unblock request. Dont abuse the unblock template for non-unblock requests, if you need editor or administrator help, use the correct templates. Q T C 21:46, 24 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.
{{
help}}
or if you need an admin, there's the handy {{
adminhelp}}
.
Q
T
C
22:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Mythdon ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
This block was made as an enforcement action related to an ArbCom case. We recently had an admin loose his status for making such an unblock. He did it knowing such a thing might happen because he saw what he felt was gross misinterpretation of ArbCom's original intent. I don't see that here, this block was just reviewed at ANI and upheld, with a proposal for your permanent banning thrown in. So I'd be going against ArbCom and community consensus by unblocking you. No thanks. Your best bet is to email WP:BASC in several months. Continued unblock requests here will probably result in loss of talk page priveleges Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:12, 28 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.
At a recent ANI thread, a few members of the community expressed concern regarding ANI reports that I had filed this month.
FayssalF ( talk · contribs), the blocking administrator had plenty of concern regarding the ANI threads I started, basically being concerns of "mind your own business" and others.
First, I'd like to discuss the sockpuppetry theory and username violation threads; "mind your own business" is an extremely weak argument to invalidate these reports, because these are incidents that anyone can just spot and report regardless of how much it has to do with them (although during the threads themselves, no such argument was made). The merits of the complaints were however dismissed.
As for
this thread; this thread also fell under the concerns by FayssalF. FayssalF states (not this thread though, but the ANI thread on me) "looking for disputes all over Wikipedia and report them here without leaving a chance for the parties to try to sort out their problems at their talk pages beforehand" - The parties were given a perfect chance to sort it out, but no resolution came, so I did feel the need to report it. The community felt that action was needed, and a 24 hour interaction ban was even imposed upon the "parties" (i.e. Mbz1, Daedalus969, etc). While I know I wasn't the best person to report it (now that I think about it, it may have better for one of the parties to do so), I was certainly a legitimate person to do so.
In response to a few comments by FayssalF during the thread:
NOTE: I am not requesting that the reviewing administrator act upon this request, but am requesting that the reviewing administrator post this request to ANI so the community can review this block.
— Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this thread again, and FayssalF's concern of "...and report them here without leaving a chance for the parties to try to sort out their problems at their talk pages beforehand" - Upon further thinking, I guess I should have waited longer for Daedalus969, Mbz1 and DarkFalls (and any others) to either sort it out (I don't think I did give them a chance now that I think about it) or report it before reporting it myself. — Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ admin help}}
It has been three years since I was banned from Wikipedia for six months, which was later followed by an indefinite block. I want to keep this as concise yet understandable as possible. The links above will give the community a better understanding of the situation.
My time on Wikipedia has essentially been spent obsessing over the most trivial technicalities and worrying too much about the actions of other users.
I have taken to literal minded judgments when making decisions regarding article edits and interactions with other users. In my discussion tactics, I used mainly rules and technicalities to justify my preposterous and disproportionate arguments.
Although I may have attempted to gear editors the right direction, I have not managed to follow suit. Instead, I got worried about the actions of other users while failing to focus on building an encyclopedia. Warning otherwise well established rollbackers actually slows down the vandal fighting process with the "you have new messages". They click their talk page only to see a message saying "hey, I really think you shouldn't have did this rollback". While many of the warnings may or may not have had valid points, I chose to make a hobby of caring too much about the edits of other users. Essentially I was patrolling the recent changes patrollers.
In my interactions with Ryulong, who I edited with on a topic area we both loved, our interactions started off as my questioning the particular details of the articles and his answers to my questions. That later evolved into a power struggle. We would go back and forth on talk pages arguing eachothers point of view while failing to pursue appropriate dispute resolutions or achieve compromise. On one hand, I am trying to enforce my interpretation of policy. On the other hand, Ryulong is trying to get me to see past policies and actually question the consequences of such an application. He tried and failed countless times to get me to use common sense.
As I developed an emotional attachment to the articles (which I was in denial of), I became increasingly obsessed with Ryulong's edits, warning his rollback edits. Ryulong began to grow frustrated of my actions and began to threaten to seek blocks in response to my AFD requests which were nothing more than a narrow minded proposed resolution to the verification problems with the Power Rangers articles.
Here I expected other users to go out and look for sources. But even after I couldn't find sources and other editors gave me their input, I was unreceptive to these suggestions continuing to argue the point further and further towards a dead end. This rendered me virtually incapable of collaborating with other editors, let alone communicating professionally.
Perhaps the only contribution I have truly made to Wikipedia is the vandal fighting. But this does not compensate for the disruptive clarification requests, ANI reports, rollback warnings and all around immaturity. I treated janitorial work as the whole of my duties, rather than searching for new information to contribute to Wikipedia.
My concept of conflict resolution stumbled upon any and all disputes I saw circulating Wikipedia at any given moment and made efforts to resolve disputes. But in the end, all it did was stir up confrontation and cop an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. If anything, I initiated drama resulting in eventual ANI reports regarding these conflicts.
My lack of balance between being janitor and editor has been the cancer of what has needlessly annoyed otherwise well established contributors. Same with the excessive clarification requests. While it may not necessarily be the amount of requests that is disruptive, such an amount may be a sign of a bigger problem. While some questions were legitimate, I could have and should have made an effort to avoid the situations prompting these requests and just went on to help produce a guideline for the tokusatsu articles, changing my general approach, finding a mentor and not going off on every instance of bad behavior while not contributing to the project.
Whenever an administrator warned me, I took to questioning the consequences of continued behavior rather than seeing where I could improve or at least what I did wrong. Pestering the administrator regarding his or her warning further conduct results in a block by continue to ask wikilawyering questions does nothing but actually drag the administrator into the conflict themselves and nettle them into frustrations regarding having moved along to other disputes but must instead continue to needlessly discuss this one.
When I first began editing, I did truly want to build an encyclopedia. But over time, I slowly grew too involved with the administrative side of the project. There's nothing wrong with wanting to administrate, but to obsess of the behind the scenes drama while failing to put to the table new knowledge for the wiki merely dramatizes disputes rather than build an encyclopedia.
It was actually last year that I did realize these things. However, having grown bored of Wikipedia at the time, I abstained from an appeal. Now, I am once again committed to contributing to Wikipedia in each and every way I can.
I would like to apologize for the precious time I have wasted with my constant hammering, pestering, hampering, annoyances, questions, etc.
If allowed back, I do not intend to return to the tokusatsu articles which I had edited during my first tenure. For my second tenure, I will make efforts to balance out my time as an editor with that of the janitor (but first, I must start off as merely the editor). I will not go off on every single instance and say "hey man, I really think you shouldn't have done that" nor look for every conflict on Wikipedia and get involved for the sake of getting involved. I will turn more attention to my work rather than caressing the details regarding the actions of others.
So I am asking that an administrator please proxy this appeal to the AN/I for discussion. Thanks.
— Mythdon (talk contribs) 06:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Per consensus, you have been unblocked. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Some of the talk page history that is missing from this page's history can be found here
You really should stop. I honestly don't know why you don't realize that your behavior, particularly your need for repeated "clarifications" at arbitration, is only hours away from getting you actually banned. The committee isn't suggesting that you take a break, its voting unanimously to block you for 6 months. If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia again at any point, I suggest you apologize for becoming a vexatious litigant and restrain yourself from ever editing any arbitration page ever again. Nathan T 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
<-Filing another request once your ban expires will demonstrate you have learned nought from the ban, and they will ban you again. I have offered an alternative proposal at RFAR, I suggest you accept it before it's too late. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you accidentally blanked the whole Amendment request? [1] Ripberger ( talk) 04:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Mythdon, I noticed you don't have email enabled. Would you kindly send an email to me ? – xeno talk 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I have made a couple of comments in a thread on the bottom of my talkpage, which you may or may not have seen, and which may or may not interest you.
My advice to you, for what it is worth, is that you step far away from Wikipedia and focus on others things completely for a long time. I am sorry to see that things have gone so badly wrong for you, and what I have suggested is now the best approach for everyone's sake. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Following the conclusion of the six month site ban, I intend to do the following:
These are things that I feel that should be done following the ban. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I have thought about some additional objectives:
After some thought, I think these are necessary too. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I put a new notice board item up regarding a user who was blocked for outing me this week. He is back editing under a new account (but signing his old user name) before his block is up, resorting to personal attacks/accusations, etc. Thought you would be interested. Bevin bell 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Mythdon is banned until March 2010 and is unable to edit his talkpage, I you want to communicate with him, you could try [ [2]] on the simple wikipedia. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, I just noticed this discussion. Jayron32 took this up with me several days ago, in response to which I acknowledged that my stated rationale was not sufficient to disable talk page editing. However, I believe that this was the right move, notwithstanding my error, because Mythdon was using his talk page to announce his intentions to persist in the behaviour that got him banned once the ban expired. Either he's trolling (my assumption of good faith has been challenged repeatedly by this user) or he's just so completely out to lunch that a complete break from Wikipedia is clearly needed. Of course, any admin may undo my action if consensus appears to be leaning that way. Steve Smith ( talk) 22:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's to you being a better editor in the future! Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back! Powergate92 Talk 21:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
With your last edit at Dazed and Confused (song), did you intend to revert back to the last version by BelowGroundSound, who had earlier blanked the page, or to the prior revision by Alansohn? Just wondering since there were several edits made at practically the same time. Piriczki ( talk) 21:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It is time for this account to have an indefinite break from Wikipedia affairs. The last ArbCom issue which involved you dates back to this ban. I see no sign of an improvement. If you want to appeal against this block, please use the appropriate steps that you are aware of. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Diff: [4]
"His AN/I reports on people he's got no business with was discussed more than enough at his talk page and the point was brought to the attention of the ArbCom during the case..." - Actually, the case had nothing to do with any AN/I reports I had filed, and certainly not any you say "people he's got no business". If any reports I had made prior, during or after the case are "people he's got no business", please explain how? Being uninvolved does not invalidate the report. How does not being involved make the reports disruptive?
"Here we are here with Mythdon invading the AN/I with reports on users involving cases that has nothing to do with him whatsoever. " - Uninvolved doesn't make the reports disruptive, especially not for reports like this (allegation of username violation and this (suspicion of sockpuppetry. I'd like to know how being uninvolved in any of my reports, especially the username and sockpuppetry reports, automatically means the reports are disruptive.
Thanks. — Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This isn't getting anywhere, and I don't see how it will. I will wait for FayssalF's further explanation, and see what happens in the meantime. —
Mythdon
(talk)
(contribs)
04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
|
All answers can be found here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Mythdon ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Not an unblock request. Dont abuse the unblock template for non-unblock requests, if you need editor or administrator help, use the correct templates. Q T C 21:46, 24 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.
{{
help}}
or if you need an admin, there's the handy {{
adminhelp}}
.
Q
T
C
22:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Mythdon ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
This block was made as an enforcement action related to an ArbCom case. We recently had an admin loose his status for making such an unblock. He did it knowing such a thing might happen because he saw what he felt was gross misinterpretation of ArbCom's original intent. I don't see that here, this block was just reviewed at ANI and upheld, with a proposal for your permanent banning thrown in. So I'd be going against ArbCom and community consensus by unblocking you. No thanks. Your best bet is to email WP:BASC in several months. Continued unblock requests here will probably result in loss of talk page priveleges Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:12, 28 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.
At a recent ANI thread, a few members of the community expressed concern regarding ANI reports that I had filed this month.
FayssalF ( talk · contribs), the blocking administrator had plenty of concern regarding the ANI threads I started, basically being concerns of "mind your own business" and others.
First, I'd like to discuss the sockpuppetry theory and username violation threads; "mind your own business" is an extremely weak argument to invalidate these reports, because these are incidents that anyone can just spot and report regardless of how much it has to do with them (although during the threads themselves, no such argument was made). The merits of the complaints were however dismissed.
As for
this thread; this thread also fell under the concerns by FayssalF. FayssalF states (not this thread though, but the ANI thread on me) "looking for disputes all over Wikipedia and report them here without leaving a chance for the parties to try to sort out their problems at their talk pages beforehand" - The parties were given a perfect chance to sort it out, but no resolution came, so I did feel the need to report it. The community felt that action was needed, and a 24 hour interaction ban was even imposed upon the "parties" (i.e. Mbz1, Daedalus969, etc). While I know I wasn't the best person to report it (now that I think about it, it may have better for one of the parties to do so), I was certainly a legitimate person to do so.
In response to a few comments by FayssalF during the thread:
NOTE: I am not requesting that the reviewing administrator act upon this request, but am requesting that the reviewing administrator post this request to ANI so the community can review this block.
— Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this thread again, and FayssalF's concern of "...and report them here without leaving a chance for the parties to try to sort out their problems at their talk pages beforehand" - Upon further thinking, I guess I should have waited longer for Daedalus969, Mbz1 and DarkFalls (and any others) to either sort it out (I don't think I did give them a chance now that I think about it) or report it before reporting it myself. — Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ admin help}}
It has been three years since I was banned from Wikipedia for six months, which was later followed by an indefinite block. I want to keep this as concise yet understandable as possible. The links above will give the community a better understanding of the situation.
My time on Wikipedia has essentially been spent obsessing over the most trivial technicalities and worrying too much about the actions of other users.
I have taken to literal minded judgments when making decisions regarding article edits and interactions with other users. In my discussion tactics, I used mainly rules and technicalities to justify my preposterous and disproportionate arguments.
Although I may have attempted to gear editors the right direction, I have not managed to follow suit. Instead, I got worried about the actions of other users while failing to focus on building an encyclopedia. Warning otherwise well established rollbackers actually slows down the vandal fighting process with the "you have new messages". They click their talk page only to see a message saying "hey, I really think you shouldn't have did this rollback". While many of the warnings may or may not have had valid points, I chose to make a hobby of caring too much about the edits of other users. Essentially I was patrolling the recent changes patrollers.
In my interactions with Ryulong, who I edited with on a topic area we both loved, our interactions started off as my questioning the particular details of the articles and his answers to my questions. That later evolved into a power struggle. We would go back and forth on talk pages arguing eachothers point of view while failing to pursue appropriate dispute resolutions or achieve compromise. On one hand, I am trying to enforce my interpretation of policy. On the other hand, Ryulong is trying to get me to see past policies and actually question the consequences of such an application. He tried and failed countless times to get me to use common sense.
As I developed an emotional attachment to the articles (which I was in denial of), I became increasingly obsessed with Ryulong's edits, warning his rollback edits. Ryulong began to grow frustrated of my actions and began to threaten to seek blocks in response to my AFD requests which were nothing more than a narrow minded proposed resolution to the verification problems with the Power Rangers articles.
Here I expected other users to go out and look for sources. But even after I couldn't find sources and other editors gave me their input, I was unreceptive to these suggestions continuing to argue the point further and further towards a dead end. This rendered me virtually incapable of collaborating with other editors, let alone communicating professionally.
Perhaps the only contribution I have truly made to Wikipedia is the vandal fighting. But this does not compensate for the disruptive clarification requests, ANI reports, rollback warnings and all around immaturity. I treated janitorial work as the whole of my duties, rather than searching for new information to contribute to Wikipedia.
My concept of conflict resolution stumbled upon any and all disputes I saw circulating Wikipedia at any given moment and made efforts to resolve disputes. But in the end, all it did was stir up confrontation and cop an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. If anything, I initiated drama resulting in eventual ANI reports regarding these conflicts.
My lack of balance between being janitor and editor has been the cancer of what has needlessly annoyed otherwise well established contributors. Same with the excessive clarification requests. While it may not necessarily be the amount of requests that is disruptive, such an amount may be a sign of a bigger problem. While some questions were legitimate, I could have and should have made an effort to avoid the situations prompting these requests and just went on to help produce a guideline for the tokusatsu articles, changing my general approach, finding a mentor and not going off on every instance of bad behavior while not contributing to the project.
Whenever an administrator warned me, I took to questioning the consequences of continued behavior rather than seeing where I could improve or at least what I did wrong. Pestering the administrator regarding his or her warning further conduct results in a block by continue to ask wikilawyering questions does nothing but actually drag the administrator into the conflict themselves and nettle them into frustrations regarding having moved along to other disputes but must instead continue to needlessly discuss this one.
When I first began editing, I did truly want to build an encyclopedia. But over time, I slowly grew too involved with the administrative side of the project. There's nothing wrong with wanting to administrate, but to obsess of the behind the scenes drama while failing to put to the table new knowledge for the wiki merely dramatizes disputes rather than build an encyclopedia.
It was actually last year that I did realize these things. However, having grown bored of Wikipedia at the time, I abstained from an appeal. Now, I am once again committed to contributing to Wikipedia in each and every way I can.
I would like to apologize for the precious time I have wasted with my constant hammering, pestering, hampering, annoyances, questions, etc.
If allowed back, I do not intend to return to the tokusatsu articles which I had edited during my first tenure. For my second tenure, I will make efforts to balance out my time as an editor with that of the janitor (but first, I must start off as merely the editor). I will not go off on every single instance and say "hey man, I really think you shouldn't have done that" nor look for every conflict on Wikipedia and get involved for the sake of getting involved. I will turn more attention to my work rather than caressing the details regarding the actions of others.
So I am asking that an administrator please proxy this appeal to the AN/I for discussion. Thanks.
— Mythdon (talk contribs) 06:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Per consensus, you have been unblocked. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)