User talk:Blazikeye535

From Meta
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Awesome Games Wiki and Crappy Games Wiki unblock[edit source]

Can i please have a 2nd chance on the CGW and the AGW. I'm sorry for being toxic and i wasn't even warned. I did nothing wrong on the qualitipedia meta wiki and can i please be unblocked. I'm not going to be toxic and i am not going to harass you. And why are you banning me on wikis that i did nothing wrong on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MountWario (talkcontribs) 18:58, 25 September 2021‎

Blaze? What are you doing? MountWario (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My blocking situation[edit source]

I would like to discuss my cross-wiki blocks with you. I have discussed this with DarkMatterMan4500 and the following points have been addressed:

  1. I was blocked indefinitely on every single Qualitipedia wiki for a very minor offense.
  2. In addition, my past actions were both extremely minor and many of them were not even in violation of any of Qualitipedia's rules.
  3. I requested to be unblocked and to have my block on Qualitipedia Meta shortened to one month.
  4. @DarkMatterMan4500:, @Dmehus:, @Raidarr:, and @FatBurn0000: have taken my side, saying that a cross-wiki ban is not necessary due to the fact that blocks should be used as a means of preventing disruption rather than as punishment. DarkMatterMan4500 also added that an indefinite cross-wiki block was not necessary since the disruption only occurred on one wiki. They seem to agree that my cross-wiki indefinite blocks were not necessary, though DarkMatterMan4500 said that he did not think that the other admins would agree. This is why I am bringing this up to you, since talking about this with DarkMatterMan4500 appears to be preaching to the choir, and thus it would be more effective for me to appeal to the person who blocked me. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I've done is agree that the system of blocking users across all wiki for offenses on a few is a bit heavy handed. QP's moderation style needs work. I believe DarkMatterMan4500's role as the formal and first leader of Qualitipedia is to not just offer easy agreement to reasonable statements, but to actually raise the issue to fellow admins and have the discussion. The harder part, following through if true agreement is expressed. I have not seen him do so and will say no discussion has taken place even in confidence. Thus I would push for this as the first step, second being to have the discussion about moderation practices on QP central. --Raidarr (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. First my situation should be resolved though. When I am unblocked I can make a Request for Comment on Qualitipedia Meta about changes to the blocking policy. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have an RFC about Bluba getting unblocked? I feel we should let the QP community as a whole determine on whether he should be unblocked or not, given the varying opinions on his blocks. TigerBlazer (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the extent of his controversy, this would make sense to do and would reflect how some past cases have worked on Meta, where blocks and block changes were issued through RfC. --Raidarr (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an entire RfC would be necessary for this situation. DarkMatterMan even said that this issue is being made way larger than it needs to be. And I really want to be back on the Reception Wikis, since they are one of the few havens for free expression of opinions on the Internet. If I can't go back to the Reception Wikis, where else will I express my opinions? Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are an awful lot of places you could express opinions, not least of which other wikis which you may even request and develop yourself. It's also what blogs (not just based on an extension from Miraheze) are typically for. --Raidarr (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the fact that I want people to be able to see it. Qualitipedia is the largest online community whose sole purpose is opinion expression. So I have to be unblocked. I also have a lot of stuff to do on Qualitipedia. If you look at my userpage on Best Shows & Episodes Wiki, I have a bunch of pages that I plan to create, and I also have two movies that I plan to add to Greatest Movies Wiki. And those are just pages I plan to create, that does not count page edits. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And this isn't even my problem. Other users have had the issue of being blocked on wikis they did nothing wrong on or did not even contribute to. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this discussion has run dry, and it is unlikely that Blazikeye will respond to this given that he is not active on Meta, I would recommend sending a liason to discuss this. It has been a month and I am still blocked. I am also getting tired of people getting angry at me appealing my blocks. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an entire RfC might be the only way to garner the attention after all. --Raidarr (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An entire RfC is not needed, and I would prefer to just be unblocked rather than having an entire discussion take place. I was also going to make a blog explaining my side of the story to end this once and for all. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the 'just unblock' is not especially successful so far, and as noted there is a good portion of the community including various wiki administrators who would not agree with it. --Raidarr (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well the concern is that, like I have said, my block is unfair. Besides, a month is a long enough block for what I did. And I do not deserve to be blocked on the wikis that I did nothing wrong on. Like I said, I am fine with a temporary block on Qualitipedia Meta, but not an infinite block, and also not any block on the other wikis since the drama did not happen there. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can maybe take a three month block, but an indefinite block for what I did is not necessary. Besides, I will have more time to think about the pages I will create on the wikis, and what to add to them. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was also thinking about making an RfC here on Meta to create a blocking policy for all wikis, since this seems to be a large problem. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not suggest attempting to create a policy to govern all wikis and how they handle blocks, particularly since you are a unique user in a network that is well known for doing its own thing in an unusual way. It will more than likely fail on that basis. --Raidarr (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already did create the Request for Comment, so it is too late. And I have seen this on non-Qualitipedia wikis as well. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up from request at Stewards' noticeboard[edit source]

Hi Blazikeye535,

A user has made a request at Stewards' noticeboard for Steward intervention regarding their crosswiki blocks. While I don't currently, at this stage, see a need for Steward intervention, I do note your local block log entry on awfulmovieswiki in which the user was reblocked on the wiki despite not having contributed, via an edit or log action, in any way on that wiki since being unblocked by another local administrator (which would be wheel-warring with another administrator). Can you explain the reason for this specific block? Please note that wikis operate on a local basis, so blocks should be done commensurate with the user's contributions to that wiki, notwithstanding proactive blocks of brand new/fairly new accounts engaged in crosswiki vandalism or blatant spam (though neither of these appears to be the case here). As well, your publicly stated reason of the user having "blown their [last/second] chance" may imply a personal animosity towards this user. Even if not, blocking users permanently on that basis should be contrary to the Code of Conduct, which calls on all Mirahezians to be kind to each other, to assume good faith, and to assume that users in good standing can correct any issues related to such minor things as being too bold or demonstrating competency issues.

Thank you for your attention to this note, and for your understanding. :)

Cheers,
Dmehus (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the comment that convinced me to block him again cross-wiki (I'm not naming who since I don't want them getting dragged into this): "I honestly want Bluba to be blocked, no more second chances. Users like him are (and this blog in general) why the wikis are drama-filled and immature in the first place and are somewhat preventing improvement in places. He got unblocked for literally no reason whatsoever, along with other people who have caused drama like FreezingTNT and SporeShroom, with the later leading to an incident leading to the original founder leaving. Bluba is still putting up posts that either have been discussed before or are completely useless. He also recently got into a fight with Raidarr and he made it uncivil by closing the discussion without input and kept bringing up the same points over and over. He seems to have brought more drama since he came back. Disagree with me you want on this, but that is what I think is the best option to start with."
When I meant second/last chances, I meant across the entire network and not just that wiki in particular. While he may have not touched that wiki, he was causing trouble on other wikis, and I figured that he would just cause trouble on whatever wiki he's unblocked on. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I would suggest, is a Community Imposed Site Ban, reviewed by Stewards to prevent bias. There's a lot to unpack in this comment.
  • Users like him are (and this blog in general) why the wikis are drama-filled and immature in the first place and are somewhat preventing improvement in places.
Now this seems to be failure of assuming good faith, at least in my opinion.
  • He got unblocked for literally no reason whatsoever,
DarkMatterMan4500 was in the right here, rather than keeping Blubabluba9990 blocked, he gave a chance for the user to improve.
  • He seems to have brought more drama since he came back
Same as my 1st point.
  • along with other people who have caused drama like FreezingTNT and SporeShroom, with the later leading to an incident leading to the original founder leaving
IMHO, calling out users who have done things wrong (as long as it isnt anything needing Steward/CVT) should not be done.
Overall, I find this to be a personal bias against Bluba. -- Cheers, Bongo Cat ( TalkContribs ) 18:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth mentioning that I disagreed with a portion of the cited comment, namely where it pertained to me. He did overreact to my statements, but I did not take it too seriously and the issue was ultimately resolved, primarily as a number of users replied to his blog on the matter with responses ranging from saying he was overreacting to taking issue with how he approached it in the first place. Not unlike the last blog I recall, it was deleted outright after a short while. That said, Blazikeye touches on an issue - he is deeply unpopular among many of the regular users of the QP based wikis. Bongo Cat raises a suggestion I'm personally in favor of, a community discussion to plant a clear stake on the issue; on that token however, if it is indeed a personal issue, it is a personal issue in the eyes of more than just this bureaucrat. The re-block was made subsequent to the above and Bluba's other activity, which included a string of very poorly received RfCs on QP central. But again, I'm inclined to a community discussion in the vein of others that were made for Meta in the past. --Raidarr (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you come here because I 'pulled' you on the terrible episodes wiki? Or was it via global notifications? But, you blocked it as evidence just a comment claim? Anyway, be more careful with comments! (especially because people play in bad faith). There is another user who is desperate for this unlock, and you were the one who penalized him, but is another case. And in the end here, are you planning to unlock Blubabluba? I hope so and the fellowship is maintained. --YellowFrogger (Talk) 19:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a lose-lose situation for me. Either I unblock him and receive backlash from the wikis, or I keep him blocked and continue to receive backlash and pressure from the Miraheze staff. I have no idea what to do at this point. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what. If you unblock me, I can explain my side of the story. I don't want this to be a drama war. Also, those previous blocks by Mario and Duchess were used as grudges, and they made that blog which was basically cancel culture. You can unblock me, I can explain my side of the story, and users will see my side, and we can put this whole thing behind us. I am not trying to be your enemy, Blazikeye, or anybody's enemy. I want peace on the Reception Wikis as much as you do. There was no reason for this to spiral out of control like it did. I admit that my actions may not have been completely in the right, but I have apologized for this. Also, I have been cross-wiki blocked for over a month, which is enough punishment. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want drama. I never wanted to cause any drama. The reason I came to these wikis is because I wanted to contribute and discuss why certain types of media are good or bad, and because it was similar to ScumBob Wiki. I may have made some mistakes, we all make mistakes. But this has gone too far for tiny issues. This could have been avoided by assuming good faith on my part, something which does not seem to be very common on Qualitipedia. This has been an issue for a while, and is what has caused a lot of backlash against the wikis, including several rants I have noticed. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of these issues are would you would call "tiny". Your list of offenses include the following:
  1. Calling a wiki worse than Hitler, which is already a serious offense in itself.
  2. Have edit warred with other users
  3. Frequently spamming your same points over and over again, which leads to nothing of value happening and making you look desperate, as well as annoying the admins which leads to nothing getting done.
  4. Not being able to accept criticism on your ideas, and aggressively trying to force points onto others.
  5. You never know when to stop talking, especially in situations where you really do need to back down.
You need to move on from these wikis. It isn't healthy for you to spend all of this time doing this. You are driving us all up the wall here and it's annoying me and other users considerably. I felt like I needed to put my input here. TigerBlazer (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TigerBlazer: It must be more because of their syndromes (outbreaks) mentioned by him on the own user page, besides, some of his diffs are broken. --YellowFrogger (Talk) 21:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't see him calling anyone "worse than hitler" --YellowFrogger (Talk) 21:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He said Nazi Germany is easier to defend than said wiki, which is along those lines. TigerBlazer (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He must have said it jokingly. I'm not advocating this but, we should have a more sense of humor, even though the comment has been a little unnecessary. Never know. --YellowFrogger (Talk) 22:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely sure that was not humor. He was blocked from that wiki and later globaled on FANDOM. TigerBlazer (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the things you mentioned are old and I apologized for those. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I apologized for that incident.
  2. All three of those revisions are deleted.
  3. I wouldn't have to if people would listen to my points the first time rather than ignoring them.
  4. I do not aggressively force my points onto others.
  5. Again, if people would listen, I wouldn't have to keep talking. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately, you apologized for that, even whether it was a joke or not. And that is really old (February of this year, 10 months ago). So you still deserve the opportunity. --YellowFrogger (Talk) 22:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. All of those things are relatively old. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "if people would listen, I wouldn't have to keep talking." sounds extremely like WP:IDHT. I don't like citing wikipedia essays at people, but the phrasing of this response is concerning. --Raidarr (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think that I may have worded that badly. I pretty much meant the same thing in Pointer 5 that I did in Pointer 3, that it seems like people never listen to what I have to say, hence why I have to keep repeating myself. That also doesn't happen very often. And I don't like doing it either. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Raidarr, who did you quote this essay to? --YellowFrogger (Talk) 22:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really the only wiki I was "causing trouble" on was Qualitipedia Meta, and I would not say I was "causing trouble". All I did on Qualitipedia Meta was make some unpopular RfCs and overreact about a joke, the former of which I got a month block for and has since been resolved, and the latter of which I apologized for and has also been resolved. In summary, I have not been "causing trouble". I did say that a temporary block on Qualitipedia Meta was appropriate to the situation, but not an indefinite cross-wiki block. My contributions on the other wikis have been constructive. The users there didn't hate me until Duchess and Mario made that attack blog, which was just filled with lies and old drama. I can explain myself in a new blog. And my unblock did not cause "backlash". I am tired of people making this out to be bigger than it needs to be. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blazikeye535, thank you for the reply. There's a lot of discussion here, some of which may be relevant, some not as much. The Blubabluba9990 closing discussions improperly, or against local policy, if the community has !voted somewhere to establish that policy, is problematic, and may be worthy of an indefinite block on that wiki. My issue, though, is that since wikis are running on a local wiki basis, the blocks should be relevant to that wiki otherwise you potentially have situation whereby you have a parallel set of global policies that apply to a large subset of Miraheze wikis which the Miraheze community has not endorsed via a discussion on this wiki. Would you be amenable to reverting any blocks on wikis where Blubabluba9990 has not continued with the same pattern of local disruption, leaving in place any blocks on wikis where the user has been warned before? Dmehus (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, like I have said, the only wiki on which a block would be justified is Qualitipedia Meta, and I do not think an indefinite block on that wiki is justified. I suggest a temporary block on Qualitipedia Meta and to be unblocked from all of the other wikis. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Oh and another thing, the admins have been repeatedly deleting my user pages on some of the wikis after I was blocked for no apparent reason. Most of them were restored, but some of them are still deleted. This has happened to other users, and there is absolutely no reason why that should be done. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've given you access to your talk page on the Qualitipedia Meta (as suggested by Raidarr), let's see how this goes. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically I advised that course for the above "I can explain my side of the story." Now Bluba can with any details that would be pertinent to an appeal and what he wishes to explain. It is not a blog per above, but it is a perfectly valid text field local on QP for a start. --Raidarr (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to make a blog post about it since it is a very long story. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did give a brief summary of my side of the story on my talk page. Explaining every single thing that has happened to me on both FANDOM and Miraheze would take an entire blog post, since like I said, it is an extremely long story and spans a year and a half. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can confirm it with evidence in your past contributions; show and explain errors and so on. --YellowFrogger (Talk) 17:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is necessary as people seem to know what I did. Besides, I can explain everything in further detail in my explanation blog post, since the events of Blubagate (yes, that is what I am calling it) span over a year and a half. Since there is so much to explain it simply cannot all be listed here. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let's just see how it goes then. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking Eric Bagwell at Best TV Shows Wiki and Terrible TV Shows Wiki[edit source]

Please, unblock me. I won't do edit warring again. Eric Bagwell (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block you for edit warring, I blocked you since a bunch of users are suspecting you're a sockpuppet of Red hair. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an evil sockpuppet! Unblock me, please. Eric Bagwell (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply claiming that you're not an "evil" sockpuppet isn't enough to get you unblocked. You're also implying that you are in fact a sockpuppet with that claim. If you're not an "evil" sockpuppet, then does that mean you're a "good" sockpuppet? Either way, sockpuppetry is ban evading. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of MY actions. Just unblock me, please. Eric Bagwell (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not unblocking you until you prove that you're not a sockpuppet of Red hair. The evidence is fairly strong, and you're doing nothing to prove your innocence. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already proved. I apologized. I know realized that messing up both Wikis is EXTREMELY WRONG. I said "I was sorry". I'm innocent. Just unblock me, please. Eric Bagwell (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you takin' much longer? Please, unblock me. Eric Bagwell (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have told you on another talk page how to appeal in a way that will be formally recognized; QP central, via your talk page as the block took place on multiple wikis. You cannot bug local staff into unblocking you; there is a process to be followed so it can be handled cleanly. In the meantime I would like to see evidence of the account's association to 'red hair', ideally to be posted on the same request for an unblock. Please follow this directive and I will take a look in my local capacity. --Raidarr (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit bureaucratic. You can administratively move their appeal to Qualitipedia Central Wiki. Also, I don't believe requiring the user to prove a negative, that they aren't a long locked user is procedurally fair and just. Rather, I would like to see overwhelming behavioural evidence from Blazikeye535 and DarkMatterMan4500 that the user is likely to be Red hair. In absence of that, that portion of the block reason needs to be summarily dismissed/overturned. Dmehus (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given DMM has made block alterations in the past short while, I'm going to defer from this issue for now and return later. I haven't reviewed the case in its entirety; but from the above it seems evident he was blocked for more than the sockpuppetry bit, which is something I do want to see evidence for. But again, it seems action is being taken without comment here yet to allow local unblock request, so feel free to disregard my approach above. --Raidarr (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Raidarr, that's fair. I would think if you waited a day or two for DarkMatterMan4500 and/or Blazikeye535 to provide satisfactory and substantiated evidence of the sockpuppetry before fully considering the user's appeal, that would be entirely reasonable. If, however, their evidence is not satisfactory, in your view, or they don't reply, then I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to overturn their blocks or grant the user's appeal, with accompanying guidance for the future. In mean time, as long as DarkMatterMan4500 has restored local user talk page access on affected wikis, you probably do not need to take any action for a day or two. Dmehus (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I believe this assessment is fair. --Raidarr (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Terms of Use violations and related reports in scope of the Trust and Safety team[edit source]

Hi Blazikeye535,

I'm Doug, a Miraheze Trust and Safety volunteer team member. Recently, I noted your good-faith, though incorrect, local blocks of a now former Miraheze user in which you very specifically articulated to the now former user the reason for their user account being off-side with the Terms of Use.

While I no doubt suspect you meant well, in part, presumably, because of historical local wiki practices in this regard, you should note that this is problematic for several reasons:

  1. Similar to the Streisand effect, your block actually draws greater attention to a user, their status, and/or their eligibility to hold a Miraheze account with Miraheze Limited than if you had privately reported it to the Trust and Safety team; and,
  2. Similar to, but not the same as given the the different context and circumstances, how federally regulated employees are prohibited from tipping off or otherwise making the customer to which they would be filing a report with anti-money laundering regulatory authorities of their suspicions, you also should not make the otherwise ineligible Miraheze user aware of the reason, as at may encourage recidivism—perhaps in more surreptitious ways.

Finally, while not relevant to your scenario, for your benefit, it may be helpful for you to know that the Trust and Safety team is solely responsible for administering enforcement of the Terms of Use and, as such, users should be referred to the Trust and Safety team.

That being said, the Trust and Safety welcomes user reports of potential Terms of Use violations and other Trust and Safety-related infractions, chiefly to the ts(at)miraheze.org e-mail address. So, with that in mind, my ask of you, going forward, is that should you see such infractions or violations, rather than blocking the user, thereby potentially alerting them to your report, please just privately e-mail the Trust and Safety team at the e-mail address quoted and, ideally, linking to relevant revisions.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. :)

Cheers,
Doug (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a slight bit of understanding about this, but not much due to me rarely ever getting involved in scenarios like that. Thanks for letting me know, I'll try to make sure to contact the e-mail address next time I find myself in a situation like that. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Happy to have helped. Thank you for your understanding. Doug (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking Eric Bagwell at Best TV Shows Wiki, Terrible TV Shows Wiki, Greatest Movies Wiki, Awful Movies Wiki, Awesome Games Wiki and Crappy Games Wiki[edit source]

You must unblock me. I was supposed to be nicer to users at most of wikis. If you unblocked me, very nicely, I would return to my duty, when I thought about long and hard about my very own actions. Eric Bagwell (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly misbehaved after multiple warnings and you've repeatedly stated that you would behave, yet you continue to do such bad things as edit warring, inserting false information, and sending personal attacks at people who cross you. At this point, everyone on Qualitipedia, including the admins, have little to no reason to trust you. Marxo Grouch (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]