User talk:ULCM Corres

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request
Block First, was without warning against new user not familiar with what appears to be an obscure policy (Issues regarding user name should rightfully be discussed, or at least linked with a prominent link, on the Signup page, to alert new users.) Further No warning was ever given, which tends to suggest that the blocking account has a personal issue that needs to be left off the site and taken up elsewhere. also, no request to change the user name, which I currently still extending an offer to do, would have been the most appropriate and reasonable means of dealing with this type of situation, as opposed to blocking an account permanently without warning. This also blocks by IP, which means the problem cant even be fixed to address the blocking Administrator's allegation.) Note that the The blocking account is also highly suspect of retaliatory conduct in relationship to other sites, which is under current formal investigation to determine if this is in fact the case, at which point I will request that administrator privileges for the account be revoked, if I receive information that suggests Administrator privileges are being abused in any way. Further, It must be understood that "ULCM" is NOT an organization, it is a TITLE which means "Univesral Life Church Minister", in common collective use by ministers ordained by the ULC (Universal Life Church) at Modesto, CA. As such, a title does not imply a "role" account, any more than other generic TITLES (i.e. "Reverend", "Officer", Senator, Doctor, etc.) imply a "role" account, per policy. The blocking account probably confused "ULCM" as a personal title with "ULC" which is the organization to which the title belongs. Wherefore, it is requested that the block be lifted, to change the account name to appease the blocking Administrator if possible. ULCM Corres (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If the request to unblock had simply said I was mistaken about it being a role account, I'd already have unblocked it with an apology. Before taking action, though, I'll need to think about the implications of a user who immediately threatens legal action (violating WN:NOT) and accuses of retaliation for something &mdash; what it'd be retaliation for, I'm having trouble imagining, but it makes me wonder if somehow or other sockpuppetry could be involved.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Further complicating the situation is a second account now in use obviously by the same person. That's allowed, but two unblocked accounts for the same user is something we're very leery of.  The two most natural alternatives would seem to be
 * block one of the two and use the other; or,
 * unblock both and have one of the accounts label the other as a doppelganger.
 * There's a bit of a quibble about the second option since the template does say established user, and the user in question really isn't established at this point, but imho this distinction is the least of our problems atm. Does the user have a preference between these two options, and in either case, which account is to be the primary? --Pi zero (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)