User talk:Johnski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against sustained and aggressive edit warring. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator. -- Tom Harrison Talk 22:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Archieve: Archieve: Arbitration Evidence Archieve 1: September 1-December 31, 2005
[edit] DOM article
I think you'll do better to wait until the outcome of the arbitration before attempting to edit on this subject again, and/or to propose all changes you want to make on the talk page and obtain consensus before proceeding. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blocking
Have you seen the proposed arbcom ruling? It says, "The locus of this dispute is edit warring and POV editing of Dominion of Melchizedek and related articles. The edit warring is sustained, and marked by aggressive editing by Johnski and a host of apparent associates."
Then it says, "Johnski, and his numerous puppets, are reasonably believed to be associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek and are capable of using a wide variety of IPs to access Wikipedia."
And finally, "Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator."
You have three times inserted the same thing against consensus. I am blocking you indefinitely. Tom Harrison Talk 22:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Tom: Is it really true that one person, Davidpdx, can determine consensus? He reverted without giving a valid reason. I asked him and he said that I was a known DOM person or something like that which isn't true (only can be assumed) and that the edition was whitewashing, without any explanation as to which part he considered whitewash. Was it the part that said the State Dept called DOM a fraud that he considered "whitewashing" or quoting from CBS? or adding the word "country" to the "non-existent" reference to the SEC? By the way, that is more accurate because it is the last word by the SEC. If Davidpdx would give logical reasons helping me to understand his concerns, we wouldn't have ended up in arbcom. Sincerely, Johnski 06:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- You asked me if I would intervene here. I've thought about it and decided that it would be inappropriate.
- I think you need to take notice of the arbitration case. If you want to return to Wikipedia and edit somewhere else, just open an account and do so, but it appears that your behavior during editing of the Melchizadek article has found to be comprehensively bad for the encyclopedia and you should stop trying to have anything to do with it.
- There are nearly a million articles in the English Wikipedia, there are many tasks that need to be done. I'm sure you'd be welcome if you could find something useful to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
