User talk:81.5.133.89

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: "I have been blocked, but not informed about it by the blocking admin, who appears not to communicate with IPs. I have been blocked for reverting a series controversial, politically-motivated edits by User:Bardcom. Check this user's edit history, talk pages, RfC, and his general approach to Wikipedia. You will notice he bullies other editors, refuses to discuss issues on his talk page and has a single-point agenda of eliminating the usage of British Isles from this encyclopedia. A large majority of his BI elimination edits are questionable (see his latest on Pict Stones) and almost all are used as a vehicle for removing British Isles by wrapping up the removal in an extended edit. Numerous editors, IPs and named, have tackled him about this behaviour but he continues with impunity. He is undermining the authenticity, legitimacy and integrity of the Wikipedia project but we seem powerless to stop him. Admins repeatedly take his side without looking under the surface at what is going on here. Unblock me and I will make legitimate, agreed changes to his edits (agreed on the talk page)."

Decline reason: "This does not address the reason for your block, which was "vandalism". Misconduct by Bardcom, if any, is not a reason to unblock you. Your dispute with Bardcom should be addressed through dispute resolution, not edit warring. — Sandstein (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)"

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

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: "So here we have one admin declining the block while another is looking into it! And just how do I go to dispute resolution when I'm blocked? Anyway, I've got 20 mins left of my wireless connection at my hotel, so I'm not bothered anymore. I'll be back in the near future with another totally different IP and I'll be back on Bardcom's case - because you admins don't want to know, and as I said he's corrupting this encyclopedia. Note - you haven't blocked "me", you've blocked the hotel's IP, so until they reset their router you've blocked all their guests for seven days. Nice one!"

Decline reason: "In that case, it's likely to remain permanently blocked as a open proxy. Thanks for letting us know you'll be back, we'll keep an eye out for our banhammers. ;-) — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)"

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

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: "Bannhammers?? What's that?. There's no reason to block such connections in hotels. How then, do users with an account log on? Are you excluding everyone staying in a hotel from editing? Make yourself useful and go and look at Bardcom"

Decline reason: "There is a very good reason for blocking them - people with an intent to vandalize, such as yourself, can log in and evade blocks ad nauseum. Users with an account can still log in and edit. If you're not going to post any useful reason to unblock you, I (or another admin) will protect this page from editing. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)"

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

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: "No problem about blocking this page, I've only a couple of minutes airtime left. Please become familiar with relevant Wikipedia policies. My actions yesterday WERE NOT vandalism, so this block is unwarranted (and just what is a banhammer anyway?"

Decline reason: "Okay, at this point I feel that you are using the WP:RFU process as a soapbox rather than attempting to communicate in a constructive way. I am declining this request and any further abuse of process is going to result in the page being protected. — Trusilver 19:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)"

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