I have been explicitly warned for treating them as any different to other contributors, so I'm doing my best to respond to their actions in that vein, as I'm concerned that I will be banned if I do not.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. I feel as if they've been trying to bait me into an over-reaction the entire time, especially with the accusations of vandalism, and it's this behaviour that provoked the moderators into rash decisions.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you've dug into my history, to find the Battle of Brisbane incident. I wonder if you dug far enough to find out that in that case, the administrators ended up taking further action against the person I was attempting to protect the article from. Additionally; I note that you've doubled down on your personal attacks by making insinuations about my behaviour being at issue, while (presumably) deliberately misrepresenting the course of events. I'm happy to work with other users to help to improve that article, but you really need to drop the stick, and give up ownership of the content.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Senor Freebie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Warning: this article is subject to a 1RR limitation.
Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Eastern Europe case, this article is subject to 1RR. Reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the talk page. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first.
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 do not believe I made any personal attacks. If you could specify what you think constitutes a personal attack, please do so immediately, or unblock me and apologise unconditionally.
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).
User Yamla has referred me to the following passage; "User:collect has major allegations of anti-semitism on their talk page and is here, defending a favourable comparison of the greatest mass murderer in human history; Adolf Hitler. I suggest that from this point forward they are disregarded entirely from the conversation until those allegations are resolved.", which they contend is a clear example of a personal attack. I have to assume that they are referring to the statement about anti-semitism. Leaving aside the fact that calling someone anti-semitic is not automatically a personal attack, it is abundantly clear that I did not say that the user was anti-semitic. I stated that there was mention of this on their talk page, and given their defence of Hitler, this was a concerning development that needed to be addressed. Further; user Yamla stated below that the other discussion about a personal attack was not about user collect, ignoring the [comment] on this allegation, prior to reporting me. If the reviewing party can comment explicitly about this matter, rather than just making curt statements of opinion that would be greatly appreciated.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Your block has already expired. However you may wish to read my original decline summary in the preceding edit. Please take that onboard so as to avoid future unpleasantness. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2018 (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.
On their side of the argument. I did not say that it was them. They commented specifically on this personal attack; claiming that it was not one.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with your reply to my unblock request, that you deleted from my talk page and I will outline why below. I ask you to specifically address the points I raise, rather than just making pronouncements; something I already asked for, and something you have consistently refused to do in the past.
Your edit linked by Yamla was a clear personal attack.
It was not. I was referring to another discussion. I did not make the accusation. I simply referred to it. Address this fact.
That you do not appear to grasp that is deeply disturbing.
It is a statement about a position. It is not a direct insult or personal attack. You need to read the definition of a personal attack.
Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)
User collect claimed that a clear personal attack against me, was not one prior to those comments. That they went from denying the existence of a personal attack that was clear as day, that a user that supported their position made, to having me blocked for asking for allegations of anti-semitism to be addressed, gives solid reason, under the guidelines of WP:AGF to assume bad faith. Address this.
And lastly I am reminded of your abuse of NPA during the discussion of the Battle of Brisbane article that required me to block you (twice!). Any further such attacks will result in a swift block. Any further such attacks posted on your talk page or in edit summaries while blocked and I will revoke your TPA.
You mean where I pointed out that someone engaged in an edit war was vandalising a page, to remove content that to this day, remains in the article? I suggest you revisit the discussion on that matter. And I suggest you address the fact that in both cases, you are assuming personal attacks, where there were none, in defense of extreme right wing positions. This appears to be a fairly strong breach of WP:NPOV.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Senor Freebie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:MascotManorBox.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:MascotManorMiniGame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:MascotManorScreen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, your reasoning for your reversion at Nick Fuentes is not valid. First, there is no policy stating the words used in wiki pages must be exact same as the source material. Secondly, the source provided shows all of the three things you take issue with: the encounter itself, the footage taken, and the criticism that ensued. I am re adding the sentence, if you still desire to have it removed please go to the talk page, and do not edit war. Nigel Abe (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re this unrevert by you -- the reason given for the revert was: WP:BLPEL: self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs; the reason I gave for the unrevert was Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of that BLP with caution. Both of those snippets are quotes from WP:BLPEL, which is part of the WP:BLP policy -- the primary objective of which is to protect the privacy of living persons mantioned in WP articles -- in this case, Malkin. BLPEL there mentions WP:BLPSELFPUB; I checked that before unreverting and it seemed to me that that the link you had removed was within those criteria. There's a question re whether this is the best place in that article for a link to the subject's website, but that's not within the scope of the reasons given. This was a drive-by edit on my part, though, and I'm not up for the in-depth discussion about it that you call for in your unrevert, so I will just let this lie. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note! I didn't catch that policy. I think that this does make it clear that someone's self-published articles or websites can be used as a source for various information about them, where little doubt of the accuracy of that information exists, but the note about external links seems to indicate that this is not the place for it. It appears that you've come to that conclusion to, so I guess this matter is closed.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
And please consider an investigation into the relationship between those users.
Hopefully a timeline of this dispute will help explain why I disagreed with Deb's edit summarised as; "restore last version before edit warring began".
1. I added a statement about the war crimes in the Phoenix Program
2. Mztourist undid this edit stating that it was not sourced.
3. I added sources.
4. Mztourist complained that sources should be in another location in the article, and undid edit 3.
5. Edit warring continued from this point forward.
6. Mztourist has ceased responding to the talk page and has instead gone to the administrators noticeboard, making a number of false claims which I addressed.
7. A user who is regularly found working with Mztourist and agreeing with them on administrative matters deleted my refutation of their claims.
8. Deb reverted to edit 1. which was not the origin of "edit warring"
9. I undid their edit explaining this fact.
10. Deb blocked me for what I view as a good faith edit.
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).
This block appears to have been conducted, based upon an incomplete understanding of the dispute that it originated from. The user "Deb" reverted the Phoeonix Program article to an earlier state, that did not reflect the current discussion on the talk page. I had explained this in detail on the administrator's noticeboard, but one of the users, who appears to have a close relationship to the editor I was in conflict with deleted all of the relevant text explaining this, with this surreptitious edit; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=957165685&oldid=957154915 - I would like the block to be lifted, and I would appreciate an apology for the error, as well as my changes to the administrator's noticeboard discussion to be returned so that my views on the dispute can be seen and heard rather than deliberately repressed. Senor Freebie (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
If you want to be unblocked, you will need to agree to leave the article alone until a consensus is reached, and not revert the impartial admin who reverted to what they saw as the pre-dispute state (and which I agree is the pre-dispute state, that is the state before you introduced the disputed content). If you disagree with that state, you need to discuss it, not just extend the edit war and try to force your preference. The bottom line is that *you* wanted to introduce disputed content, so *you* must seek consensus for its inclusion when it is contested. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2020 (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.
Oh, and you need to stop making attacks on editors who disagree with you, so knock off with the "possible sockpuppet of Mztourist" and the "user who is regularly found working with Mztourist and agreeing with them on administrative matters" stuff please. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like an admin other than Boing! said Zebedee to comment on this, as I have previously encountered you and believe your judgement to be biased when it comes to me.
I also would like to point out that at the time of my previous edit, the matters that Boing! said Zebedee raised had already been addressed, and I would like that acknowledged. Deb's edit reverted to content that was not disputed on the talk page. And it is in my view **deeply** problematic that the edit of the administrative noticeboard that I highlighted above has not been commented on.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you are welcome to make a new unblock request and someone else will review it. And please accept my apologies, as I had forgotten our previous interaction from more than three years ago (which I assume is the one you mean). I've interacted with so many people since then that it's impossible for me to remember everyone I'm supposed to be biased against. It does not, however, forbid me from taking admin action now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and assuming the ANI edit is the one in which you interspersed your responses inside someone else's comment - that disrupts the presentation of their comment, and is pretty much frowned upon. The appropriate response would have been to re-add your response as a separate comment below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apology not accepted. I am a casual editor of Wikipedia. I attempt to contribute and discuss matters in good faith, and the majority of my edits are seen as constructive and end up in articles until someone improves on them. On occasion I have come across editors who are possessive of articles, and this was one of those instances, as was the last time I interacted with you. And rather than action being taken against them for basically using administrative procedures to fight what were minor, and uncontroversial edits that went against their biases, I've been the one who has had to spend an enormous amount of time replying to people who routinely refuse to even address the core points in my replies. Whether it's deliberate or not, you've twice now fed into this feeling of disillusionment in the structure of the Wikipedia project; whereby someone with the necessary time, motivation, and knowledge of procedures can totally avoid making coherent arguments, either on the talk page, or in edit summaries, and just get admins to do their dirty work.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, it was a joke/sarcastic apology, so sorry for that (but this one's genuine). Anyway, you know how to make a new unblock request if you want. And, as I say, someone else will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't surprise me at all that you were being uncivil and impolite while not taking abuses of the platform you're supposed to police seriously. --Senor Freebie (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Warning
I don't know if you're going to make a new unblock request or not, but I have another warning for you. I have just read the dialogue at Talk:Phoenix Program, and I see personal attacks from you, again. As one example, the accusation that "you don't like the factual view that massacring unarmed civilians is a war crime" is an absolutely unacceptable slur. Having refreshed my memory of the events of 2017, this is exactly the same kind of behaviour you were sanctioned for back then, and I told you then that if you do not stop you will be stopped. I also see that in the intervening time, you received another block for making personal attacks, and really quite serious ones. I repeat the warning - the next time I see a personal attack from you, you are getting a long block, possibly indefinite. Change the way you interact with people, or your days as a Wikipedia editor will end. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a personal attack, let alone a slur? The previous instance with you, which I'll remind you, you apologised for, involved you making the undefended claim that I made personal attacks then. You have a habit of making that claim about me, without backing it up, and you have a habit of refusing to engage in discussion, or address points that I raise. You seem to think that your opinion is above reproach, and that you can sanction me in any way you see fit without having to explain or defend your actions. This is precisely why I already pointed out that I think that you behave in a manner not appropriate for your position.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My warning is solely about *your* behaviour towards others, which has been atrocious. It is nothing to do with the actual disputes or how they will work out, and is not in any way related to the behaviour of others. It's *your* behaviour, nothing else. And my warning stands. If you don't change your approach of making personal attacks against those with whom you are in a dispute (and if you can't see why the accusation I highlighted above is a personal attack, then I really don't think I can help you) then you should expect escalating blocks. And if you think I don't behave in a manner appropriate for my position, I invite you to make a report at WP:AN when your current block expires and I will stand down as an admin if the community thinks I should. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Senor Freebie, I would just remind you that the user of whom you complain had a warning from me at the same time you did. He abided by the warning, you didn't. That is why you were blocked and he wasn't. Deb (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the warning, just like you didn't see the contents of the dispute that had been removed by one of the subjects of my complaints. Thanks for letting me know about it now though.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the warnings posted above. There is no doubt that you have the demonstrated ability to be a constructive contributor to the project. But you also have a long track record of acrimonious interactions with your fellow editors, especially when in disagreement. You have been blocked four times by three different admins over the last few years so the problem is not with a specific admin. Please dial it down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are the exact same admin that Boing backed up last time, in error, on a matter that neither of you took the time to defend and were clearly in the wrong on. You are one of the admins that you reference. The other; Deb made an error due to bad faith edits by another editor which they were not aware of, as I highlighted above. I have respectfully requested that Boing leave me alone, and leave this discussion to other users, and they at first said that they would acquiesce, and have since reneged on that without explanation or justification. As I believe you have also acted in a biased fashion on this matter I'd also like to request that you leave me alone.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not say I would acquiesce and not comment further at all. I merely said that "you are welcome to make a new unblock request and someone else will review it". I also added that our previous interaction "does not, however, forbid me from taking admin action now". It's just up there in the previous section, and you can easily check it yourself. When you get into a situation where you have been blocked multiple times for similar behaviour over a number of years, I strongly suggest you need to rethink your approach of "All the admins who have blocked me are wrong, not me". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you regard the finding against you on ANI in May for the same behaviour I described to be a personal attack against you as well?--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a continuation of your personal attacks, after having been given multiple clear warnings to stop. You will not be allowed to continue to edit Wikipedia until you make a convincing committment to change your approach to interaction with other editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. And it's pretty amazing that you're lying so blatantly. Why won't you address any of the criticism of your actions? Why are you responding with shutting down discussions that you failed to properly discuss?--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only unfair, it is an abuse of your responsibility and you know it. And you've done this, in my view because I expressed concern with the Wikipedia project in general, due to your behaviour. You are bullying me off this platform and you know it.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see above where I said "And if you think I don't behave in a manner appropriate for my position, I invite you to make a report at WP:AN when your current block expires and I will stand down as an admin if the community thinks I should"? I note you did not do that, but my committement stands, should you successfully appeal this block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mztourist has been involved in longrunning disputes including multiple ANI findings against them
I've gone back a little bit in the history of this debate, and it seems that I've basically just stood on some toes. Clearly this is part of a bigger political battle on Wikipedia that before now I was not aware of, which would take an enormous amount of effort to unravel, but I'm going to state for the record that the explanation of what a personal attack is on Wikipedia's policy page does not align with my descriptions of Mztourist's positions within discussions. I did not make barbed, or targeted derogatory comments about them, and unless Boing can point me to another explanation on Wikipedia I do not accept their view that I made personal attacks in this discussion, especially as a number of admins and other users have come to very similar conclusions, repeatedly, about their editing.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivial to find more of the behaviour I described, which begs the question why I'm being blocked for describing it. Here; this user who has the South Vietnamese flag on his profile, commented here under the heading Good Riddance. No more VC! (a term for the movement which resisted the government of South Vietnam) when they gathered with TimesAreAChanging, Mztourist, and another user (who was in the US Navy during the conflict) to ban a Vietnamese editor. If celebrating the banning of someone you describe as Viet Cong is not a personal attack than my descriptions of Mztourist's positions in the discussions on the Phoenix Program were also not personal attacks.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most recently saying that I "manipulated the discussion to have me blocked for a week" and accusing Boing! said Zebedee of lying above are both personal attacks, as arguably is the title of this section. Mztourist (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you do insist that saying that you have had ANI findings against you is a personal attack? It's interesting that you are making the same false claim about that as Boing. I can back up the fact that Boing lied. But I'll leave that for another time. I have also repeatedly pointed out to the fact that a user that you regularly work with, and agree with was involved in manipulating the ANI discussion. Do you deny that? Or do you claim that just mentioning that is a personal attack?--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Describing someone's behaviour, or events that they were involved in, or position in a discussion is not a personal attack. This is according to Wikipedia's own policy page. It is not intended as derogatory and it is dishonest to claim otherwise.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your e-mail
The reason I've blocked you from using your Talk page is that you have been using it to carry out further personal attacks of the kind for which you were blocked. If you are looking for an unblock, I suggest you e-mail someone else who doesn't mind you having their personal e-mail address. I'm certainly not giving you mine. Deb (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to reviewing admin re this appeal. Since the appellant is now going back over older ground in his appeal, I think a few facts should be noted.
On 19 May I intervened in a dispute on ANI, where SF was one of two participants in an edit war. I warned both users that I was going to revert the article to the last version before the edit war began, and with this edit I warned that if either of them continued it, I would issue a block. The very next thing SF did was to revert my change, with the edit summary "User did not restore the version they claimed." I therefore imposed a temporary block, noting this action at ANI and also placing a templated warning on SF's Talk page, which he seemed not to understand. The other user felt that I had given SF rather an easy ride, but I was making allowances for the fact that he is very inexperienced, despite his long tenure on the project.
As you see above, SF appealed against the short block, and User:Boing! said Zebedee declined the request. Instead of launching a second appeal, SF made personal attacks on several others, which ended in him being indefinitely blocked for this on 27 May.
Immediately following the second block (again, the evidence is further up this page), SF made additional personal attacks, most recently calling his opponents "dishonest". At this point, it appeared that SF was not intending to appeal as he had been advised to do in the second block notice, but was making use of his talk page to continue the personal attacks. I therefore extended the block.
Rather than appealing against the block, which a cursory reading of Wikipedia:Appealing a block would have told him how to do, SF e-mailed me to ask me to explain myself. I can't reproduce the exact wording, as I deleted the e-mail and replied here, as you see above. I swiftly received a second e-mail, which I won't reproduce here because it was just more of the same. As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of it. Deb (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Access to comment is restricted"
At your UTRS request, you ask "I would appreciate an explanation of what the "restricted comment" notes above mean." Those green comments are inter-admin comments discussing your appeal, and you do not have access to read them. If an admin wants to make a comment for you to be able to read, they will send it as a message to you and it will appear in blue at the UTRS appeal. As it happens, my most recent such comment was intended to be addressed to you and I used the wrong kind of comment, my apology. It reads "For the record, "It's against policy for blocking admins to be involved in appeals" is false. There is no policy forbidding a blocking admin from commenting in an appeal - in fact, they are often asked to." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, and reply to "why admins involved in this dispute are here?", I wonder if you are misunderstanding WP:INVOLVED. Admins are not allowed to use admin tools when they are involved in an underlying content dispute, but they are not excluded from taking part in appeals when they are only involved in adminstrative action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Any review will be carried out by an administrator other than the one who blocked you." Yes, the review will be carried out by an administrator other than the one who blocked you, but that does not forbid blocking admins from taking part in the discussion. It means *I* must not accept or decline your appeal, but I can comment on it for the benefit of the reviewing admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the one I've just posted there now says "I've explained at Senor Freebie's talk page what green "Access to comment is restricted" comments are" - that was a comment to tell other admins I've done it and save them explaining too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the consensus, unanimously, among reviewing admins is that you have failed to address the reasons for your block and have continued making attacks on UTRS. Looks like I'm nominated to close this.
You say you did not see previous responses? Here is one of mine, "In other words, you wish to 1) place blame on others and 2) continue your personal attacks? Are you saying you do not understand the reason you are blocked? You have a long history of making personal attacks, which you do not recognize as such, and therefore believe you have been treated unfairly? Do you not see that you have in no way addressed the reasons for your block? You were blocked in May for edit warring. Can you tell us what one should do instead of edit warring?"
Furthermore, your personal attacks and accusations of bad faith are growing increasingly bizarre and strident. You have received responses on your talk page which you have attacked and or discounted. Your disruption and refusal to understand the reasons for your being blocked in no way encourages anyone to allow you to use your talk page to continue your personal attacks and disruption.
Per JBW on 06-12 20:29:21
"You say that you "would appreciate a decision for this appeal", but you have already had the same decision for two appeals, from two different administrators, and are clearly unwilling to accept that decision. The one remote chance of your unblock request being accepted is if you follow the various pieces of advice in the guide to appealling blocks, including, but not restricted to, addressing the aspects of YOUR editing that led to the block, the aspects of YOUR editing that led to your talk page access being revoked, and the aspects of YOUR editing that have led to previous appeals being declined, not the aspects of other people's actions that you personally don't like."
As always, JBW has struck the nail squarely.
PS: Yes Deltaquadbot is malfunctioning. We all get notices from Deltaquadbot. Again, your assumptions are totally shrill and full of attacks. You behavior is the opposite of what it needs to be to be unblocked. Just so you see this, I'll post it to your talk page.
PPS: Just to be clear, your responses to our responses make it clear that restoring your talk page access would only allow the personal attacks and other disruptive behavior to continue on your talk page. It cannot be done. Thanks, --Deep fried okra(schalte ein)08:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-- 2020-06-07 02:35:51 (331dot had reserved before I could answer. Mine would have been better. This will be a recurring theme.)
I had a lovely reply composed in my head, but this ticket is reserved. Anyway, sounds like you want to continue the personal attacks that led to your block. And you have not addressed the behavior that led to your block.
30799
|2020-06-07 05:20:44 (attempted reply. I thought appeallants could see the comments)
In other words, you wish to 1) place blame on others and 2) continue your personal attacks? Are you saying you do not understand the reason you are blocked? You have a long history of making personal attacks, which you do not recognize as such, and therefore believe you have been treated unfairly? Do you not see that you have in no way addressed the reasons for your block? You were blocked in May for edit warring. Can you tell us what one should do instead of edit warring?
In other words, you wish to 1) place blame on others and 2) continue your personal attacks? Are you saying you do not understand the reason you are blocked? You have a long history of making personal attacks, which you do not recognize as such, and therefore believe you have been treated unfairly? Do you not see that you have in no way addressed the reasons for your block? You were blocked in May for edit warring. Can you tell us what one should do instead of edit warring?
2020-06-09 15:06:48 (respose to your reply)
Well, so far you've not addressed the reasons for your block, and no admin is as yet willing to unblock. The length and amount of digression in an unblock request is inversely proportiaonl to the likelihood of its success.
2020-06-09 15:07:48 (post release comment to avoid wheel-warring concerns, if anyone disagreed with my opinion that the request should be declined)
If anyone can see there way through to unblock, please feel free.
30915
-- 2020-06-10 02:54:13
I don't know if you saw JBW's last comment, which I agree with, so I will repost it here. "So far, you have not addressed the reasons for your block. You have merely rephrased a desire to contiune as before on your talk page. To quote--"You have a long and persistent history of belligerence and a battle ground mentality towards any editor with whom you disagree, frequently descending into offensive attacks. Your statements that you don't see what you have done as being personal attacks appears to be fully justified, and you will not be able to abstain from doing what you cannot see you are doing. The fact that *in the course of requesting unblocks for personal attacks you repeatedly make further attacks of the same kind* strongly adds to the evidence that you cannot stop because you can't see that you are doing it." Please address these concerns. You like to quote rules at people, so please do read or reread the Guide to appealing blocks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks Thanks,
2020-06-10 02:56:21 (comment)
Please see last two requests. I believe if user cannot formulate an actual request for unblock that it would be best to block him from UTRS for a while.
2020-06-10 03:03:14
PS. To refresh your memory, you are blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. As it says on your talk page. Please stop attacking other users and address your own editing. Thanks.
2020-06-19 07:57:48 (Decline)
I'm sorry, but the consensus, unanimously, among reviewing admins is that you have failed to address the reasons for your block and have continued making attacks on UTRS. Looks like I'm nominated to close this. You say you did not see previous responses? Here is one of mine, "In other words, you wish to 1) place blame on others and 2) continue your personal attacks? Are you saying you do not understand the reason you are blocked? You have a long history of making personal attacks, which you do not recognize as such, and therefore believe you have been treated unfairly? Do you not see that you have in no way addressed the reasons for your block? You were blocked in May for edit warring. Can you tell us what one should do instead of edit warring?" Furthermore, your personal attacks and accusations of bad faith are growing increasingly bizarre and strident. You have received responses on your talk page which you have attacked and or discounted. Your disruption and refusal to understand the reasons for your being blocked in no way encourages anyone to allow you to use your talk page to continue your personal attacks and disruption. Per JBW--06-12 20:29:21 "You say that you "would appreciate a decision for this appeal", but you have already had the same decision for two appeals, from two different administrators, and are clearly unwilling to accept that decision. The one remote chance of your unblock request being accepted is if you follow the various pieces of advice in the guide to appealling blocks, including, but not restricted to, addressing the aspects of YOUR editing that led to the block, the aspects of YOUR editing that led to your talk page access being revoked, and the aspects of YOUR editing that have led to previous appeals being declined, not the aspects of other people's actions that you personally don't like." As always, JBW has struck the nail squarely. PS Yes Deltaquadbot is malfunctioning. We all get notices from Deltaquadbot. Again, your assumptions are totally shrill and full of attacks. You behavior is the opposite of what it needs to be to be unblocked. Just so you see this, I'll post it to your talk page.
Which I think I did. Sometimes, it's the only way to maintain transparency. Oh yes, Deltaquadbot. Deltaquad has been following the bot around removing those messages.
Hey SF, I apologize for the lack of comments via the UTRS interface. I've never accepted/rejected an appeal using this interface so I thought when I hit decline it would allow me to type a comment. In the effort of transparency, I'll post my comment here.
2020-06-19 19:36:09 (Decline)
As has been stated many times, you seem to have a long and persistent history of belligerence and a battleground mentality. Your argument in earlier appeals that we are "casting aspirations" seems especially obtuse given the lengthly talk page discussions I've sifted through where exacts diffs and scenarios are brought up. I don't doubt you can be an asset to Wikipedia but building it goes beyond content. If you cannot specifically address what you did that led this block, how can we be expected to unblock you? Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive and your PAs/refusal to reach consensus are disruptive to building Wikipedia. If one cannot work cordially with others, especially those they disagree with, it is counterintuitive and destructive. I think the admins who have been working with you through this have been informative and your refusal to acknowledge their help further shows your battleground mentality. As seen in the diff shown above, I don't believe you understand what went wrong and refuse to take responsibility.
Thanks for uploading File:RugbyLeagueChallengeScreen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:RugbyLeagueChallengeScreen3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
