User talk:Friedricer/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Friedricer. 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 1

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Friedricer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am blocked unfairly, without warning, by the adminstrator buddy of another user, need another adminstrator to intervene

Decline reason:

I think YellowMonkey's block was not totally accurate, because you do have useful contributions over the past year. However, lately all you've done has been disruptive: you've been edit warring, using incivil edit summaries, and trying to insert POV into articles. YellowMonkey says he thinks you are a sock but couldn't find a match: to me this indicates you are probably not a sockpuppet... but regardless, this disruption has been your sole focus lately, so I can't issue an unblock based on the idea that the block was unjustified. (It may be that there was some bias here, but I don't undo biased blocks unless they were actually unjustified.) P.S. the block was not delayed; you were blocked on January 6th, even if you are only noticing it now. Mango juice^talk 14:14, 12 March 2009 (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.

Hello User talk:Mangojuice this is strange, I was being reviewed by another admin User:Slakr, you seemed to have come in out of nowwhere. I appreciate your input, but forgive me if I don't agree with your assessment. First of all your assessment is wrong and assumes no WP:Good Faith. I didn't edit war, I prevented vandalism, and a few edits on a page do not make "all I was doing", lets not be so dramatic shall we. If edit warring was such a worry in this situation the other 2 who were definitely inserting POV and edit warring, User:Pectore and User:Nishkid64 had no blocks done against them as they are still editing, and a block of this nature was so severe, I agree this is a blatantly biased action against me. Note; I inserted no POV, so that means you are misinformed or mistaken and need to make a review again. I have only preserved a small portion of cited text which was being removed and replaced with POV wording. Check the cite again to see the wording comes directly from the reference. Just by you using that accusation against me, has made me suspcious that you might be one of those POV pushers, especially after looking at your edit history. I request that User:slakr to continue to review my case, or if not availabe another non-POV admin to review my case, as your edit history makes me a little apprehensive at a fair review. Thank you for your time, but I will not be needing your services. Have a good day--Friedricer (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Friedricer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocked unfairly for unknown reason

Decline reason:

Reason is given below and in your block log. Please put up a new unblock request when you respond to the questions below so that we know you have answered - this is neither a denial nor acceptance of your request. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:15, 14 March 2009 (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.

Contacted the blocking admin to get more details. Hold tight for a little while so that we can clear this up. I apologize if this is sorta chaotically confusing :(. --slakr^\ talk / 00:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, in order to avoid getting blocked in the future (should the block be reversed), please be sure to state that you intend to abide by our various policies, most importantly in this situation our no-edit warring and three revert rule policies. While both of these are blockable offenses, we don't usually block indefinitely unless you've used multiple accounts or there are repeated violations. --slakr^\ talk / 00:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Slakr, thank you very much for responding. Thank you also for contacting YellowMonkey,the admin that is responsible, as I cannot contact or leave a message for this admin/user, as he has blocked all my editing ability and there doesn't seem to be a email option on his page.

As last time I edited was back in January, I suspect this is a delayed retaliatory action on behalf of others. Note; I know I did not violate 3 revert or edit warring. My edit history will show I abide by wikipedia policies, others might of violated them, but once you review my situation, I hope you can see I did not step beyond those policies. I appreciate you taking the time to inquire into my situation, I will explain further, after you have received your response from him and get back to me. Thank you. --Friedricer (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out to you that there is nothing illegal about this block. While the block may be unfair, we administrators do have the legal right, as the agents of the Wikimedia Foundation, to block, ban, or otherwise restrict from editing its pages any individual, with or without reason. I strongly recommend that you drop the "legal" line here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Mishehu, thats very interesting, I may have presumed too much of wikipedia having checks and balances on abuses of admin powers. I have removed that word. I do want to point out again, this is a unfair move on that adminstrator's part, and suspciously seems it was done on behalf of a POV group who he is sympathetic to. If you have any suggestions for a situation like this I would welcome it. --Friedricer (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on block

Since you seem to be ignorant of the reason(s) for your block, you appear to have been blocked as an edit-warring sockpuppet. Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions from admin reviewing block

Please explain the content of your user page.
What do you intend to edit if you were released from the block?
How will you avoid edit warring?

Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because I am accused of something does not mean it is true. The motivations of the person doing the blocking need to come into question.

1. I am not a sockpuppet, that is a lie. I am falsely accused of being a sockpuppet, by the very people who should be accused of sock puppetry. No proof can be brought of sock puppetry, it is a trumped up accusation that has no basis, so I would appreciate it if that accusation is dropped.

2. I was not warned or given a message on my talk page,that I had been blocked and for what until I tried to edit again, which I view as a unfair uncivil action, which I feel conflicts with WP:Civility.

3. Since I have not directly been shown what or where it is I edit warred, I am just going to assume it was my last edits, and next time I expect a message and specificity when a action was taken.

4. I did not edit war, I prevented vandalism. My edits only preserved text cited as it was from reference, it was vandalized by POV driven editors ( i.e. User:Pectore and User:Nishkid64) who changed the meaning to that which is not reflected in the cite. If one reviews the history you can see I was ganged up on by these editors, who seem to work in alliance with a similar group of POV editors or possible sockpuppets to avoid the 3 revert rule.

5. The other people involved in the situation who are obviously edit warning had no action taken against them, confirming that this was a very biased and unfair action against me, reflecting badly upon on an environment of fair use among all editors in wikipedia.--Friedricer (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What Todd was asking in #1 is what you mean by "Friedricer attack!", not the revert of the sockpuppet tag; I think we all understand that as you disputing that you are a sockpuppet. You haven't answered question #2: what kind of editing do you intend to do if unblocked? This is about the future, not about the past. As for #3, your answer is bad: you were definitely edit-warring; you made many reverts to the Religious violence in Orissa article without discussing the reasons for your changes; your edit summaries were primarily used to make attacks on other editors. You weren't breaking WP:3RR because your edits were spread out, but this is clearly edit warring.

As for the other people, see WP:NOTTHEM. But still, it deserves an answer: unlike Pectore, (1) you made many reverts without attempting to explain your reasons, and (2) there is an appearance that you were only editing for this purpose. Pectore should maybe have been warned for accusing you of being a sockpuppet, but he did at least explain his edits in the first place, and he clearly has other interests. ISKapoor made just one edit, not worth bothering with. And Nishkid is a well-respected admin who was merely trying to fix an error you made in accidentally duplicating large sections of the article, which you then called "tag team reverting." So you see, your behavior really doesn't compare to theirs. Mango juice^talk 14:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And you aren't going to help yourself out here by accusing everyone of vandalism and POV. There is nothing vandalistic about any of the edits you reverted. Vandalism is edits aimed at intentionally damaging Wikipedia articles; these editors clearly thought they were improving the article. As for POV, that's just a way of saying they disagreed with you; why should we believe that they have a POV and you are aiming at Neutrality, rather than the other way around? Mango juice^talk 14:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Friedricer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocked for false reasons by POV admin, please have neutral/non-POV Admin review

Decline reason:

Declined for proper reasons by neutral admin displeased by personal attack and failure to assume good faith and attempt to shift blame. This is your last public request for the duration of the block; page is being protected. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2009 (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.

The edit war appears to have been on Religious violence in Orissa. You should have just answered my questions. At this point, you're lucky your block wasn't changed to indefinite. Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Friedricer. 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 1