WhoWatches (talk | contribs) |
→Blocked: declined for now |
||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
You've had your fun, this is a disruptive [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]], p[lease go back to your main account now. This account is blocked. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC) |
You've had your fun, this is a disruptive [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]], p[lease go back to your main account now. This account is blocked. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
{{ |
{{unblock reviewed|1=This block is clearly unjustified and has no reason to happen. I have no desire to receive phone calls or emails regarding the discussion I was in.|decline=Can you please give a good reason as to why you should be unblocked other than 'unjustified'? I'm sure you find it is, but the blocking admin obviously did not think so. —[[User:Mizu onna sango15|<span style="font-family:Sterling Script;color:#C41E3A">Mizu onna sango15</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Mizu onna sango15|<font color="#960018">Hello!</font>]]''</sup> 10:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)}} |
Revision as of 10:12, 2 January 2009
Welcome
|
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Plea to take a different attitude
I'm sorry that you feel so negatively towards the project; however, your contributions at AdminWatch talk are unconstructive. I hope you can see that it's frustrating to us that you won't engage with the discussion at hand. I believe you should resolve your issues through established channels if you believe you've been unfairly treated. If you think an admin breaches the policy in relation to yourself once the AdminWatch process is live, you are welcome to notify this. It is not a retrospective process.
Because your postings are overwhelmingly negative, I ask that you remove them. Otherwise, I'll do this myself in about 14 hours. You are welcome to contribute constructively after that, but I must warn you that if you subsequently reinstate the posts, I will ask for action to be taken to prevent this recurring.
I do hope that you choose the positive pathway; I'm not trying to stifle your views—they are simply better communicated in more appropriate places on WP. Tony (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- You no doubt have been on the receiving end of actions of evil admins, so you're a chappy with axes to grind. Note that AdminWatch has been created to tackle just the sort of abuses which you may have been a victim of. If I were you, I would look to Tony as an ally in the path to redressing the scales of justice on WP. I would urge you to sit down, have a cup of coffe -second thoughts, no, coffee is a stimulant - take a few deep breaths, chant Om a few times. Once your blood pressure is back to below 120/80 and your sedentary pulse is at below 70, kindly let us have a few concrete and varied past examples of such abuse; it would also be valuable if you would share some suggestions as to how you believe the AdminWatch process should deal with these abuses. I think you are in a very good position to share your direct experience and help construct a process which will word. I am sure you are intelligent enough to know that ranting and throwing insults are likely to have a deleterious effect in achieving your goals. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism-only account
You appear to be an contributor on Wikipedia that is only used for vandalism. Please stop. You are welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue. Cheers, MHLUtalk 18:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SOCK#LEGIT, Segregation and Security, Section 3: I keep this account to avoid receiving harassing emails or phone calls while entering into discussion with other Wikipedia users. This is not a "vandalism" account and will never enter the wikipedia article space. WhoWatches (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Section 3 says "A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle...". Whilst MHLU - who isn't an admin by the way - was wrong to drop a vandalism template on your userpage, equally I don't see a "highly controversial article" being edited here. Black Kite 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Given that there are people who commented in the AdminWatch MFD who know both my email address and phone number, I consider them within my social/professional circles (thankfully not family at least) and have no desire to deal with any emails/phone calls related to this discussion. Therefore, you are incorrect in not seeing a "highly controversial article" in question. WhoWatches (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's a user subpage not an article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Given that there are people who commented in the AdminWatch MFD who know both my email address and phone number, I consider them within my social/professional circles (thankfully not family at least) and have no desire to deal with any emails/phone calls related to this discussion. Therefore, you are incorrect in not seeing a "highly controversial article" in question. WhoWatches (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Section 3 says "A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle...". Whilst MHLU - who isn't an admin by the way - was wrong to drop a vandalism template on your userpage, equally I don't see a "highly controversial article" being edited here. Black Kite 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
You've had your fun, this is a disruptive single-purpose account, p[lease go back to your main account now. This account is blocked. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
WhoWatches (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is clearly unjustified and has no reason to happen. I have no desire to receive phone calls or emails regarding the discussion I was in.
Decline reason:
Can you please give a good reason as to why you should be unblocked other than 'unjustified'? I'm sure you find it is, but the blocking admin obviously did not think so. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 10:12, 2 January 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.