I'm confused why you reverted back that old speedy tag? Did you notice that it was the user's user page and not an article? The user can put nonsense on their user page if they like. Pedro : Chat 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).
I believe I have only reverted the page 3 times as a whole (although I have made the initial addition), and surely not by the "wide margin" as is said by the blocking admin, CIreland. Other admins can check my editing history on the page. I also believe the block is unjustified because I have never been warned of 3RR and never had past violations. I attempted to discuss with the user and made good faith attempts to help out the user. I do not dispute the judgement of the blocking admin, but I call for more attention to this matter. Furthermore, the user and I are now actively discussing in the talk page. I am also discussing about other matters of the article. This block serves little purpose except to disrupt my discussions. Thanks.
Decline reason:
You were clearly aware of WP:3RR and clearly violated it. However, I would support unblocking you, with the blocking admin's permission, if you agreed to refrain from any direct editing of that article for the next 24 hours. Still, with only an 8 hour block, there's very little time to get this all investigated and resolved. — Yamla (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Note to reviewing admin: I blocked on the basis of:
Those are edits over a few hours and constitutes significantly different contents. While technically it is a violation of 3RR, I have made every attempt at discussion with each edit and with each user. I believe there are 4 disputes in the above, 3 of which are now resolved by discussion. By common sense, my reverts actually accomplished something and are not edit wars. Herunar (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to admin Yamla's unblock decline: I was aware of 3RR, but I was not aware that I violated it. I made these edits to the page over a span of three hours and have attempted to resolve each discussion, succeeding in 3 out of 4. I did not know that a successful discussion still constitutes a violation of 3RR - by my common sense, I assumed that 3RR accounts only for unilateral reverts when there are discussions, of which I made 3. Still, discussing history is pointless. I am currently active in several other discussions on the talk page, so I could not pledge that I would not make an edit on the article. But I will pledge that I will discuss every edit first. Herunar (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have discussed this with the blocking admin. He is happy for me to lift the block if you agree not to edit the article directly for 24 hours (from the period of your last edit). You are, of course, welcome to continue your discussions on the article's discussion page. Your pledge above, although close to this, is not quite sufficient in my opinion. You are of course free to refuse my proposal, and can either request another admin review your block or simply wait out your 8 hour block. If you agree and I lift the block, I will be extending the same terms to the other blocked party. --Yamla (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading your comments on the torch relay and I can't get over your cloudy, distorted logic.
Next time, leave your crooked thinking in some Chinese alley way, and don't bother to broadcast your garbage to us independent free thinking people of the world. We enjoy freedom of expression and we have a free media. We aren't impressed by your crooked Cultural Revolution logic. So cut it short and save us all the embarrassment of watching you make a fool of yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.59.55.68 (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, lie and prognosticate! See what good it does you! It doesn't change the fact that you are defending genocide and mass murder. How noble, I have to hand it to you!
It doesn't change the fact that in China there is no freedom of information, and it doesn't change the quality of mainland news sources. Every time I read Xinhua, I gag, and I wonder what buffoons actually believe this nonsense. Not just today, but since its inception.
You are a real piece of work. Thanks for exposing the lunacy of the mainland people for the whole world to see with your smart behavior. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.59.55.68 (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whooaa! 1931! What a comeback. Why aren't you a lawyer? You seem to really know your argumentation down pat!
Is your crooked thinking China's only contribution to the world? Why haven't you had a valid education?
Thanks again for exposing Mainland people for the rest of the world! Every word that comes out of your mouth only makes you look worse! Good stuff, keep on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.59.55.68 (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that BLP does not cover all forms of comment, but incorrect in that it restricts itself only to obviously libellous accusations.
Please note, also, that your statement on the image makes no sense. I certainly can't tell the difference between the individuals, and nor does the FU rationale make the claim that both the incidents were sufficiently distinct as to require individual coverage. Please rewrite the rationale to make that case. --Relata refero (disp.)19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, here's the thing... I didn't make that comparison. Somebody else made that comparison for me. Somebody else stated that I had political views that were similar considering rape victims as to blame for wearing revealing clothes... and nothing could be further from the truth! What am I supposed to do? Sit here and let that go unargued? Sit here and happily let passers by think that such a totally misguided and uninvited suggestin actually represents my views?
And then, even after quite clearly stating that the comparison was false, and I most certainly do not believe rape victims are to blame for their own suffering, it appears that people them decry me for making the comparison between politics and rape victims... which is really interesting because the original argument was over the nature of who might consider what to be idiotic and why (and no, before anybody gets the wrong idea there... idiocy or lack of responsibility does not equal blame, nor do I consider rape victims to be stupid by nature of being rape victims - rape victims have the same capacity for stupidity as the rest of (or indeed, any other section, of the human population.) If the coparison with rape victims anger you, then please, feel free to look closely and discover who in fact was accusatively made that comparison, and be angry with that person, not me... And not least in light of your lack of research in that particular matter, I disprove that you accuse me further of a lack of research and understanding - just because I do not agree with you, it does not equate to a lack of research or understanding. I have in fact done my own research, and have my own understanding - just as you have done yours and have yours (and further... I would like to suggest in a particular instance that if you actually were aware of a source that categorically mentioned a kick in that particula instance, why didn't you use it in the first place, as it would be ipso-facto, a better source. In that respect, if you included a source that said such (as you provided in the talk page) in the article, our discourse at least improved something.
I am happy to WP:AGF in considering your motives in joining the encyclopedia, even to the point where untill you mentioned them, I had no cause to even consider the possibility of them being anything else but those you mention. However, in matters of research and understanding, and in matters of becoming angry, I would like to politely ask you to consider, as any of us might, a good hard glance in the mirror before criticising or even forming a view of others.
However, I would like to thank you for your message... it was indeed appreciated... and assure you that if you were any part of my ceasing all active editing, it was but a particularly small part. It is in fact a general culture I have encountered repeatedly across Wikipedia - even as I joined the first article I imporved resulted in me recieving prolonged and numerous personal attacks and insults (before the instigator of these was banned). I've mediated some patently rediculous, angry, bitter, and invloved disputes over quite simple encyclopaedic issues, and have seen numerous cases of beaurocracy getting in the way of building an encyclopedia, allowing incivility, bullying, ignorance and aggression to thrive in the process. In terms of the flam article in particular though, well, there are people who's conduct and accusations upset me far, far more than anything you said or did there. Crimsone (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Violentolympicprotestor.jpg listed for deletion
There's no need to be incivil over this. I searched the archives and nowhere does it say that. Unreliably sourced info can be removed at any time. The burden of evidence is on the person adding new info, so please don't add unsourced figures, thanks. Spellcast (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"You've nominated for deletion all the images on the article except your own, and all failed. end of discussion."
I think that if you actually spent the time to check what the situation was you'd discover that you're very much mistaken there. I've nominated for deletion a number of unfree images which I don't consider to be fair use. This is very different from nominating "all the images on the article except your own". I'd also disagree that my efforts in relation to this issue are a failure. Whilst the nominations were much opposed, bringing attention to this issue has allowed for free alternatives to be found. I've negotiated with the photographer of one of the images who has now agreed to release it under the GFDL and have also successfully asked a Flickr user to release an alternative image that we can use in place of one of the unfree images. I certainly don't think this is a failure.
The issues with Image:Violentolympicprotestor.jpg remain. There are no details of the copyright holder and so it was removed from the article and will be deleted in the near future. Also, considering we've now got some GFDL images of this athlete defending the torch we can't justify using this unfree image. Adambro (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you put these comments in the wrong section. The section in which you've put the comments relates to the nomination for deletion which has now been closed since the photographer released the image under GFDL and I've uploaded it to Commons.
You may be correct that the consensus is to keep that image but whilst it might not be deleted as a result of the IfD, it will be deleted because it lacks details of the copyright holder and is unused. Adambro (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that I've left you a couple of messages about Image:Violentolympicprotestor.jpg now but you see more interested in making comments via edit summaries than actually entering into a constructive discussion. I find it quite humorous that you condemn my actions as "childish" and imply that they could in anyway lead to my admin rights being removed yet continue the reverting yourself. The image remains lacking the required details of its copyright holder and is orphaned yet you seem to be suggesting this isn't the case by removing the tags. I'm not sure I understand on what you are basing this decision. The IfD consensus to keep the image doesn't stop it later being deleted due to being unused and lacking the required details. If you really want I'll happily close the IfD as "Keep" and then reinstate the tags which highlight the missing copyright info and that the image is unused. Adambro (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours due to your inability to be civil towards other editors as demonstrated here, here, and here which you were warned about. You are welcome to appeal the block if you don't feel it is appropriate but I suspect another administrator would come to the same conclusion. Adambro (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such nonsense. Such ridicule. You nominated two images for deletion, were opposed overwhelmingly, then you go to the image page and nominate it for deletion yet again, even before the deletion process ends. Then you enter into a silly tit-for-tat revert war with me and finally block me in your own dispute because you have nothing left to say. Pathetic.
To everyone else reading this discussion, here's the confession: I deserved to be blocked and I wanted to be blocked. I insulted some assholes repeatedly and I have no intent to cease, simply because they are ignorant brats whose only purpose is to ruin Wikipedia. And I feel no guilt. In fact, I believe the 24 hour block by Adambro is far too few, since I not only engaged in extreme incivilty but also in edit warring. Of course, Adambro won't admit that because he was the admin who edit-warred with me. I have given up in Wikipedia and frankly I don't give a shit. I will accept a block from every other admin in Wikipedia. That said, I vehemently oppose this block by Adambro, a block filled with stinking hypocrisy. Let's talk about this. Crimsone is a user who I often disagreed with, even despised for a moment. But in no place on Wikipedia is the incivility that Adambro had towards Crimsone acceptable. Adambro insulted her then insulted her yet again after a mild request for an apology. The details will be left to the readers. It is not difficult to see the immense hypocrisy in an admin who has just went onto AN for incivility and then blocking me for incivility in a dispute. Hereby, I ask for an unblock and a reblock by another admin who has a respect of Wikipedia's policies, and an unofficial examination of Adambro's edits by an admin. Herunar (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Don't request unblock unless you want to be actually unblocked. We're not going to reblock you just because you don't like who did it. I just reviewed your contributions, and your attacks are unacceptable. Consider this an endorsement of the block if you really don't like Adambro doing it. — Hersfold(t/a/c)15:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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).
Reply to unblock decline: A block by an admin who was engaged in a content dispute was frowned upon in the community, and I've never heard of an admin who edit-warred and then blocked the opposing user. Let me explain my request - if an independent admin wants to block me, it's perfectly fine. However, I do wish to be unblocked since this unblock is illegitimate in nature. Herunar (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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).
Restating my rationale: That's not the point. I simply disagree with a block by the above admin Adambro - it does not matter if the gesture is functional or symbolic. It is unacceptable for an admin who childishly engages in a tit-for-tat revert war then block the other editor. What I am requesting here is an unblock. I am simply making it clear that I admit my wrongdoings and is open to comment by other admins, but not necessarily a reblock, or a reblock of the same duration. Moreover, blocks are symbolic. We often have admins blocking other users or admins symbolically - say, for one 1 second, which actually happened to Jimmy Wales, or admins blocking then unblocking users after an initial block expired as a symbolic gesture, usually when the initial block is illegitimate. Herunar (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Question is, how many people do agree with a block of themselves? Edit summaries like this one and comments that tell other users to "fuck off" show that the block was indeed, justified. Declined unblock. — Kwsn(Ni!)16:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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).
Hasty, bad-faith block with little research. The admin's logical process seems to be that 1. I was once blocked, 2. He disagrees with my edits; and thus, I should be blocked. I simply reverted the admin's unreasonable removal of what I believe is a legitimate speedy delete tag. What he thinks about the original version does not matter - All I ask is that the admin pays a little attention to what's going on in the article, and he gives me a 72 hour block. Since it seems that you are interested in my previous blocks, I will explain them - the first block was given for an edit war which I unknowingly entered. The admins offered me an opportunity to unblock after a debate, although I did not bother to take it. The second block was a content dispute with an admin, and a block which I, and several users above, certainly disagreed with. Legitimate or not, both of these blocks have nothing to do with vandalism. In fact, they further cement my credibility as a user who wishes to improve Wikipedia. I am astonished that you would quote these two incidents as a reference for your hasty, unresearched block. Unblock, and please pay more attention. Herunar (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
The blocking admin didn't notice this, otherwise you could have been blocked for much greater time. Anyway, because you refused below to explain your edit that looks like a sneaky vandalism, resorting to wikilawyering instead, your block is extended indefinitely. MaxSem(Han shot first!)16:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
While I certainly will be more than willing to explain my edit, it is not related to the current situation. Nakon reverted a page and removed a speedy delete tag in the process. I reverted and reminded him that speedy delete tags should not be removed, but contested (if possible). What he did was accuse me of being blind then block me for 72 hours, with one of two reasons being that I was blocked before. I wholeheartedly disagree with this decision, and am asking for an unblock and further review of what happened. Herunar (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admins in Wikipedia seem to have a tendency to hit the infinite button without considering the users' contributions to Wikipedia. I have made nearly 1000 edits to Wikipedia, and while some of them are controversial, I am proud of my contributions, and I have put my best efforts in improving Wikipedia. Anyone who doubts simply have to look at the time and toil I spent perfecting every bit of the articles I happened upon, the lengthy edit summaries I gave. I understand that my edits are often controversial, since they are often in the sensitive political articles. But an indef ban based on three reverts? I would like to point out the immense ridicule in this decision. But then the admins would point me to WP:NPA and give me what - a double indef block? I would have explained my edits patiently had you requested so - my point is simply that the initial block is incorrect. Your answer is an indef block, with the logic that "if he saw this..he probably would..thus..you deserve it". I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. If this logic holds water, Dick Cheney would have been impeached for his mistakes made before the Iraq war, and Hillary Clinton won't be running for president. Herunar (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).
decline with the same reason as above, also, stop spamming unblock requests, or your talk page will get protected →AzaToth17:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
