User talk:172.144.114.109

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This address has been blocked for a period of 31 hours due to persistent trolling and disruption. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked another pair of eyes to review the actions here. If another administrator believes that I have acted unfairly, please overturn this block as soon as possible. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "blocking admin is falsely accusing of disruption when it was just a matter of edits he did not like... no trolling was involved, just responding to false accusations of vandalism... he was caught breaking policy earlier by semiprotecting a page without reason solely to prevent me from editing (with no vandalism or even an edit war involved) and was embarassed for being called on it"

Decline reason: "Tendentious editing to a biogarphy of a living individual is a perfectly acceptable reason for blocking."

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Contents

[edit] Blocked without any legit reason

Admin User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me has recently waged a campaign of falsely labeling my edits as vandalism, broken policies to protect a page solely to stop me from editing, has reverted my edits to a number of pages for no reason and has now blocked me because of this disagreemtn. In short, he has a conflict with me and has abused his admin powers to try to make me do what he wants instead of what is best for the encyclopedia. So what else is new? 172.144.114.109 08:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be easier to carry on a dialogue if you created an account. Also, you show little or no willingness to debate your edits on Talk pages. We have to be especially careful where living individuals are concerned. Just zis Guy you know? 11:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bunch of false warnings below

  1. Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! abakharev 06:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, yeah, of course, but no articles were blanked by me, so what are you complaining about? 172.144.114.109 07:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I was refering to this edit of yours. abakharev 07:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, then you admit that you warned me about blanking when it wasn;t blanking? Thanks for that complete waste of time. Why is it that so many people here trying to warn other people about rules don;t seem to understand them in the slightest? 172.144.114.109 07:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, you blanked, at the bottom of the article.  Killfest2  07:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Please, go read the actual policy. That's not blanking, that's making necessary well-informed edits. Blanking is specifically getting rid of things just for getting rid of them. You yourself said below that my edits were made with the right idea in mind, so that's obviously not blanking. These endless string of false warnings is really pretty tiring. And, honestly, anyone trying to enforce policies should really be a lot more informed on what they actually say. 172.144.114.109 07:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:TROLL policy abakharev 08:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
For crying out loud, are you just here to recite a long list of policies you don't understand? You warned me that I broke a policy. I didn;t. I told you that, thinking that maybe you would take the opportunity to educate yourself and avoid such mistakes in the future. It is clear that you are only editing here to be harassing instead of actually to provide any sort of helpful suggestions. You warned me not to blank, I won't blank, in fact I never blanked, so what ia it REALLY that you hope to accomplish by posting here? You made a mistake, admit it, move on, and don't turn it into some personal crusade for revenge or whatever it is you are doing here. 172.144.114.109 08:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
How about Stankdawg and Strom Carlson? In any case, please stop. You've made your point. Time to move on to something else original rather than repeating yourself. --Elonka 07:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, lookie, lookie, the person pulling the strings makes an appearance. I see you don't understand policy either. Note the part above where it says the redirecting is a good thing, which is what was done on those pages. Blanking is specifically, well, you know, BLANKING a page. Please try to educate yourself on how things work here. 172.144.114.109 07:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Elonka Dunin. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, dude, no, no it's not considered vandalism. Go read the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy and specifically the "what vandalism is not" section. Those edits I made were in no way, shape or form vandalism. People remove extra unnecessary content from articles all the time. It's pretty stupid of you to try to warn me about policy violations when your warning is not a real warning AND you were caught violating policy yourself by protecting that same article completely against the rules here. Now please, if you are going to play like you are enforcing rules here, please take the effort to understand the policies. 172.144.114.109 07:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concensus

Although your edits may have been in the right vain, your reasoning was unfortunately not - concensus is required to delete large chunks of info, as opposed to concensus not being required to keep it.  Killfest2  07:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this, people making shit up off the top of their heads night? The word in consensus, and you should go read about it. 172.144.114.109 07:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That crossed the line of being a personal attack.
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.  Killfest2  07:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry you feel this way, but then you'd have to admit (if you were being honest) that you are not in the best position to be unbiased in judging such things. Once again I would urge you to stop wasting your time trying to lecture to someone when it's clear that you could use a brush up on the policies here. 07:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elonka Dunin

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Kevin_b_er 07:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful reminder. I wonder if you put that oh so helpful reminder on User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me's page? I understand policy and am following it, unlike that guy. 172.144.114.109 07:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, first, did you not see the warning directly above? I saw that totally unnecessary warning already, doing it again is just bordering on harassment. Second, Clown Sir, you yourself are just as in danger of violating the policy as I am, so warning me about it seems rather misplaced. Third, hey, aren't you supposed to include the name of the article that the warning is for? I mean, really, you obviously need to go read up on things here, as you've made mistake after mistake all night and are compounding it by making moves that could easily be seen as retaliation instead of trying to be helpful. 172.144.114.109 08:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)