Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 153:
== Arb request ==
Did you mean to open an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=431888800 arbitration request]? --[[User:NeilN|'''<
Yes - still working on it though so pls be patient.[[User:Alex79818|Alex79818]] ([[User talk:Alex79818#top|talk]]) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Line 222:
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for your long running use of IP sock puppets to continue and escalate disputes as demonstrated at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818]]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I object to this action in the strongest possible terms as I am not a sockpuppet, nor have I ever engaged in vandalism. A review of my talk posts reveal attempts at discussion, while the IP's noted reveal disruptive activity. The truth of what drives this process is that at the Falklands Article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands#History_Section talk] page there are several established editors who continually engage in [[WP:NPOV]] violations, engaging with editors who present opposing viewpoints with aggressive and uncivil tones, and tag-teaming to prevent reaching [[WP:3RR]]. What normally happens is that when new editors who come in and try to participate and establish balance are quickly confronted by this cabal of [[WP:NPOV]]-violating editors. After a few exchanges during which they learn these editors aren't here to discuss but rather to distort and enfirce, new editors seem to begin to edit as unregistered IPs, after which they generally lose interest and choose not to participate any more. This happens again and again, and it hurts the encyclopaedia, but the [[WP:NPOV]] violators do not seem to care about it and, given that this method generally works, have continued to operate in this manner for years. Of course, there are editors like me who are determined to insert balance into the article, and because they can't manage to frustrate me no matter how hard they try, they level baseless accusations at me like this one, with which they've managed to block me. What is going on here is that other editors who engage in [[WP:NPOV]] violations are stifling discussion in the Falklands talk page, engaging in [[WP:GAMES]] by labeling my discussion activity as 'disruptive'. They then conflate that with the actual disruptive activities of other IP editors that I have nothing to do with. And since the IP editors are leveling their own accusations of [[WP:GAMES]] against them, just as I am, it seems they and I are one and the same. This is completely false, and I beg administrators to read my entire reply as I examine the two main reasons for this block, my agreement with them and behavioral analisys of the posts: 1. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] has blocked me on the basis of a behavioral review under [[WP:DUCK]]. [[WP:DUCK]] does not apply to non-obvious cases such as this one, given that a review of the Falklands Article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands#History_Section talk] page would clearly show a large number of IP-nonregistered editors making contributions and discussion suggestions similar to mine through the years. I am not all those IP editors, even if I agree with them and they with me on some or all positions. I am a registered editor and I always use my own account, and I sign into it from wherever I am. The possibility of others copying and pasting text authored by me, and then expanding upon it, is also not being taken into account. 2. I have been accused by other editors to be a puppet of other established accounts, such as [[User:Smackyrod|Smackyrod]]. No evidence has ever been presented. That some of my opinions agree with those of an IP is not sufficient to block me when the content of the discussion doesn't match the character, and content itself does not establish obviousness. I agree with the IP in that certain users are engaging in [[WP:GAMES]]. That by itself does not establish that I have engaged in disruptive editing. This applies not just to me but to all other editors, so it isn't arbitrary, and other editors have also agreed that the editors who now accuse me have engaged in uncivil behavior. For instance, [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] stated in a recent ANI [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive715#Falkland_Islands thread] that "denying the discussion of such matters is as non collegiate as threatening continued "disruption by process"." I ask, does the act of [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]]'s agreement with the IP's contentions automatically mean he is engaging in disruptive activities with the IP, or that he is a puppet of the IP? Likewise, In my ARBCOM [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=433308131 request], users [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]],[[User:pmt7ar|pmt7ar]], [[User:MartinVL|MartinVL]], [[User:Mariano(t/c)|Mariano(t/c)]], [[User:Camilo Sanchez|Camilo Sanchez]], [[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]], all have agreed at least partly with my accusation that certain regular contributors to the Falklands Article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands#History_Section talk] page engage in uncivil behavior during their discussions. Does their agreement with me also constitute vandalism? Let me state plainly: per my ARBCOM accusation, several editors to the Falkland Islands page and related articles are engaging in [[WP:GAMES]] to mantain text entries that clearly violate [[WP:NPOV]]. The request to have me blocked is yet another instance of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAME editorial games]. Allowing such a block to remain permanent against editors who only seek to insert balance into a WP article would only reflect poorly upon the WP admin community. Lastly, I would like to bring attention to the fact that [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]], who approved the block, manifested in the ARBCOM [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=433308131 page] his view that what is contained in the Falklands talk page is "generally quite civil". This is demonstrably false and betrays his bias on the matter and on his decision to block me. A cursory review of the discussion history will show that nothing could be further from the truth, and I have provided many examples (such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_6#British_bias_and_edit_warring_and_POV_pushing 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_8#UN_Resolutions_and_more_argentinian_references_need_to_be_included_in_this_article. 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_6#Respecting_while_rejecting_Argentine_claims 3], etc I can provide many more) where discussion has been highly contentious, uncivil, and [[WP:NPOV]] violators managed to continue to harm the encyclopaedia's content. I believe a review of the instances I cited would clearly suggest that [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]]'s involvement and decision on this issue are both rooted in bias, as anyone with a measure of common sense could see the instances of discussion I have cited are nowhere near being civil. It is incredible that an admin who declares himself "uninvolved" would make such an observation after looking at the references I listed. Also please note that I was not even involved in those discussions - meaning I am not the only editor who's leveled such charges against the editors who now accuse me - and that subsequent participation on the part of the editors aggrieved by the [[WP:NPOV]] violators has waned. Those editors now accuse me of sockpuppetry for attempting to insert balance into the article, conflating my posts with that of another unrelated IP. It appears that if they can't thwart my determination to insert balance by causing me to lose heart, they'll simply play [[WP:GAMES]] and make false accusations against me. If administrators are fair, this cannot stand. I therefore request administrators unblock me so that I may continue my endeavor to bring balance to the article in question. This block is not necessary to prevent damage or destruction and in fact aids damage to the encyclopaedia by legitimizing editors engaging in [[WP:GAMES]] to further violations of [[WP:NPOV]].[[User:Alex79818|Alex79818]] ([[User talk:Alex79818#top|talk]]) 22:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC) | decline=Procedural decline - this wall'o'text was superceded by 2 unblock requests below ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">talk→</span>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' [[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]] '''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">←track</span>]]) 08:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)}}
:Please shorten your appeal - short and concise appeals generally work better, and are more certain to address the points of your block. As it is, I have no interest in reading this. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 19:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed | 1=Ok, the short version, 6 points I want to make - sorry, I know it's a lot. All I ask is that you check out what I say and not just take my word for it. I'm requesting my block be lifted because: 1. The block is not necessary to prevent damage or destruction. The block helps others damage Wikipedia content. 2. The block is based on [[WP:DUCK]], which does not apply to non-obvious cases. This case is non-obvious for the reasons I point out below. 3. The accusations against me and this block are the last of many acts of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAME editorial games] by a group of involved admins and regular editors to the Wikipedia Falkland Islands [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_islands article]. As I and many others named above have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=433308131 observed], this group of editors and admins have for years engaged in uncivil behavior and [[WP:GAMES]] to insert into the article text that violates [[WP:NPOV]]. It's gotten so bad there's been [[WP:EW]] over punctuation. 4. The behavior of this group of editors is consistently aggressive and uncivil towards other editors like me who attempt to insert balance into the article, opposing their [[WP:NPOV]] violations. Most editors just get fed up; many turn to IP socking and I am not one of them. A review of my talk posts reveal attempts at discussion, while the IP's noted reveal disruptive activity. They can't frustrate me, so they prevent me from participating with this block. My views regarding these editors' [[WP:GAMES]] violations happen to agree with those of an IP who has been vandalizing. I have never vandalized, I always sign in and I always edit under my own name wherever I am. Many other article contributors, out of frustration with these group of editors, will resort to IP socking, or stop contributing altogether. I am not and have never been one of them. 6. The admin who allowed the block, [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]], participated in the recent ARBCOM case over the article's [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:GAMES]] violations, where he said that the tone of the conversation on the article's talk page was "generally quite civil". A short review of the talk history (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_6#British_bias_and_edit_warring_and_POV_pushing 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_8#UN_Resolutions_and_more_argentinian_references_need_to_be_included_in_this_article. 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_6#Respecting_while_rejecting_Argentine_claims 3]) shows the degree of uncivil behavior of these editors over time. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]]'s opinion on the ARBCOM page, in spite of the facts, denotes a bias that aids editors who are harming WP's content. This calls into question his decision to take up the request to block me based on [[WP:DUCK]]. Thank you for your time.[[User:Alex79818|Alex79818]] ([[User talk:Alex79818#top|talk]]) 00:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | decline=From cursory inspection, this account's behavior seems to suggest that a decent amount of its editing is occurring while logged out. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falkland_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=156320255 last edit] this account made to [[Falkland Islands]] was in 2007, yet it seems inexplicably involved—heavily—in processes surrounding the article at hand (extensive talk page use as well as filing for ANI and Arbcom proceedings). When there's a dispute, this account has been there to contribute its opinion or lodge complaints, but then it disappears. This is highly atypical behavior and is frequently associated with sock or meat-puppetry. Therefore, in my opinion, there is not sufficient evidence to suggest unblocking this account is the best course of action. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 01:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)}}
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I completely disagree with [[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]'s decision and restate my request to be immediately unblocked. The reason for not making an edit since 2007 has been attempts at discussion and reaching consensus to prevent an [[WP:EW]]. I again wish to point out the fact that this block is based on [[WP:DUCK]] and [[WP:DUCK]] does not apply to non-obvious cases such as this one. There is no basis for this block, this block is not necessary as I am not now nor have I ever before engaged in vandalism. I suggest the offending IP be blocked instead of giving credence to false accusations against me because I happen to agree with another editor who resorted to vandalism, which I have never taken part in nor condoned. Maintaining this block aids editors who are damaging the encyclopedia by inserting content that violates [[WP:NPOV]] as their behavior demonstrates in past discussion threads (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_6#British_bias_and_edit_warring_and_POV_pushing 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_8#UN_Resolutions_and_more_argentinian_references_need_to_be_included_in_this_article. 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_6#Respecting_while_rejecting_Argentine_claims 3]). I challenge any admin who thinks the block should stay to demonstrate that the accusation of IP sock against me is "obvious", such that [[WP:DUCK]] applies. Let's see some diff's from me and the IP and compare and see if the accusation is obvious or non-obvious. The behavior analysis report didn't post any diffs showing similarities or identical text coming from both of us - only a list of the IP's posts and mine. Show the WP community a diff that demonstrates that [[WP:DUCK]] applies because the sockpuppy accusation is "obvious" and I will drop my request for reinstatement. Otherwise, kindly observe the provisions of [[WP:DUCK]] and remove this block, so that I may continue to seek to achieve balance in the article's text.[[User:Alex79818|Alex79818]] ([[User talk:Alex79818#top|talk]]) 02:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | decline=You cannot simply post essentially the same "evidence" and expect another admin to react differently. Indeed, your "challenge" probably will solidify the block further, and such similar unblock requests will lead to a locking of this talkpage from all edits. From even looking at a handful of edits to the article, [[WP:DUCK]] appears as obvious as the words "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" immediately below where I am typing. Re-read the [[WP:GAB|guide to appealing blocks]] so that you may better understand the best course of action. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">talk→</span>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' [[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]] '''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">←track</span>]]) 08:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)}}
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I'm not posting any evidence. Just the opposite, I ask for evidence to be given. I can verify every edit I've made to the article, even back in 2007, with valid sources. You don't like the word challenge? Ok - pick any word you like, then. I'm asking for anyone to post a diff of what I said and what the IP I'm supposed to be said. If the accusation is so obvious it shouldn't be too hard to find, but I still don't see it. What I do see is that the IP that vandalized can still edit, while I can't. What I do see is that a bunch of editors are free to violate [[WP:NPOV]] and engage in [[WP:EW]] over things like punctuation. What I do see is an arbitrary interpretation of behavioral analysis, not by a neutral admin, but by an admin who has previously demonstrated opposition to my efforts to bring balance to an article riddled with [[WP:NPOV]] violations. What I do see is that no admin ever does anything about that - and yet, when I'm accused of something I haven't done, they're all too happy to come down like a hammer without posting so much as a diff. Be fair, is that really too much to ask? I repeat my request for reinstatement, for the exact same reason: no diffs or other evidence was presented against me that show it's "obvious" that me and the IP are one and the same.[[User:Alex79818|Alex79818]] ([[User talk:Alex79818#top|talk]]) 04:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC) | decline=First, when you post diffs as you did in ''all three'' of your unblock requests above, you're posting evidence regardless of what you say. Second, when you use your IP as you did below, you not only tank any chance of being unblocked anytime in this millenium, you have also, when considering that this is also your ''fourth'' request, guaranteed that I will cut your talk page access off. Have a nice day. — [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 15:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)}}
<div class="notice" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px">
[[File:Information icon.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] Your ability to edit this talk page during the block has been revoked due to abuse of the unblock template. If you wish to appeal the block further, contact the unblock mailing list at ''{{NoSpam|unblock-en-l|lists.wikimedia.org}}''.
</div> [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 15:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
==these admins are idiots==
So I vandalize and somebody else gets banned for it, HA! AND I CAN STILL EDIT! Wow. [[User:Alex79818|Alex79818]] don't waste your time with these grade-A idiots.
This is EXACTLY why people say WP is a joke. Sorry u got banned.[[Special:Contributions/209.36.57.10|209.36.57.10]] ([[User talk:209.36.57.10|talk]]) 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
| |||