User talk:108.28.162.125

Why are you not using your account? If its for the reasons I think - it not in bad faith - thus suggest =you look into Wikipedia:Clean start.Moxy (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that a clean start requires that one avoid the subjects and areas that one edited in with one's previous account. This is to prevent the clean start from being used to avoid scrutiny. The clean start editor should be committed to editing and improving Wikipedia without getting into the same sort of problems that caused problems for the previous account. It is not a "get out of jail free" card. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear I have no intentions of making a clean start because its impossible to do so without being dishonest and being a sockpuppet. A cleanstart account means that its a cleanstart. That cannot be done if your original account is linked to it so everyone can see it. The notion that one can make a cleanstart with everyone knowing is absurd and always has been. That's why 99% get blocked. As I mentioned below I made a couple comments on discussions I felt were important. Since my edits aren't wanted, I will not be editing at all. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know this is ridiculous and insulting to the community. I made it intentionally clear who I was in the edit history and anyone who interacted with my likely new from the pattern of editing. To say that I was hiding is foolish and insulting to the community in general. I told you already three times I locked my account and have no intent to use it. I am not trying to avoid scrutiny. I am trying to avoid drama but I was clearly kidding myself that could be accomplished in todays editing environment. I did a couple of edits with my IP on discussions I felt were important. Since its clear my comments are not wanted or needed that's fine. But just so we are clear. This block is punitive and not protecting the pedia. I tried to be a useful contributor and that wasn't wanted, you might as well block me indefinately and put a note on the User talk:Kumioko talk page and chalk me up as another editor that was ruined by the toxic culture here that would rather tear editors down than allow them to succeed and be useful contributors. I am sorry to see I invested so much time in a project I thought was a good one and had a meaningful purpose only to find out what its really like. Even Jimbo wants to cut ties with this place before it drags him down too! Oh and one last thing. I always thought very highly of you. But this is a petty and shallow way of blocking scutiny of Arbcom. But i does further prove my points and theories about how negatively Arbcom and its decisions affect the pedia. You let editors like Fram, Brad and Sarek (finally something is being done about him...maybe) do what ever they want and encourage them to continue to bully other editors but then you run me outta town. Shameful, truly shameful. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]