User talk:82.113.121.16

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: "Admin "Future Perfect at Sunrise" misused his admin-privilegs blocking this IP. He changed an article ("Sarah_Wiener") in bad faith. He didn't give a valid explanation for changing. He didn't try to answer on any of the possible ways to enable contact. He didn't say the truth. Furthermore he worked in collaboration with an anonymous IP to remove any hint in the article that was related to what he himself deleted from the page. Looking through the anonymous IP's talk page it's obvious that this IP is often used in that sort of cases. Overall: He didn't give any reason for his changes, and so only protected his personal point if view. Interestingly the IP-block is unusual long compared to any know case known to me. ADMIN-Misuse on article he was personally involved."

Decline reason: "I see no indication of any COI on the part of the blocking admin. This request does not address the reason for your block. Misconduct by the blocking admin, if any, is irrelevant with regard to the validity of this block. —  Sandstein  22:18, 16 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: "I just realized a plain lie by the Admin "Future Perfect at Sunrise": First reason he gives for the block is "block evasion". This is just a lie. I really wonder how this person could come up with such a blatant wrong point. He seems to know very well what he is doing: To accuse other people of something but not giving any hint where that should have been happened: How should anyone then check that? 82.113.121.16 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "See above. —  Sandstein  22:18, 16 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: "User "Sandstein" did decline the two previous unblock requests, though he reviewed/answered only one of the reasons given for unblocking: He didn't check that the reasons given by "Future Perfect at Sunrise" for the changes on the "Sarah Wiener" article were just wrong. "Future Perfect at Sunrise" first stated content would be against the "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons"-guidelines. Then he changed his mind and added that the content he removed were "original research" either. Both reasons on which "Future Perfect at Sunrise" build his explanations to change the article were wrong. So I changed it back. Then he blocked me. User "Sandstein" if acting accordingly to the guidelines for deciding on unblocking requests would have had to first thouroughly weight the given information and would have had to look into the article. Nobody could know if he did look at the article, as he simply didn't answered to the given reasons for the two above unblocking requests. 82.113.121.16 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC) ,, Edit: One more reason why Sandstein's decline is wrong: "Future Perfect at Sunrise" himself stated that he would set the block because of edit warring. As he was the only one changing my revert, obviously he must be the other part of the edit warring. So he himself showed that he is involved in the editing of the content. There was none other person steadily reverting beside him."

Decline reason: "Again, what others did/did not do is irrelevant. You were blocked (correctly) for violations of policy. Your unblock message needs to address your actions, not those of others. Continuing to abuse this template will get your talk page protected from editing for the duration of your block. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:38, 16 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: "Sandstein and Hersfold obviously didn't follow the guidelines for deciding upon unblocking requests. My unblock requests clearly addresses my edits actions: I clearly pointed out that the claim from "Future Perfect at Sunrise" about my edits were wrong. They were neither "original research" nor against the guidlines for Biographies. If you "Hersfold" would have read the guidelines about deciding on unblocking requests, you would know, that you only have to decide an unblocking request after thouroughly weighting the disputed content of the article. In short: Neither of my requests stated I want an imediate unblock. I didn't put that in my request, as obviously it's not possible to weight the disputed content immedeatly. So I was infact very surprised about the speed in which the decline from User "Sandstein" came. Maybe instead of pointing out rules about blocking editing of this User-discussion-page, you should first read the guidelines of how to decide unblocking requests. And if it takes to long for your flavor to weight the disputed contents thouroghly, then just let the unblocking request stay on the category page. Noone prompted you to decide in 2 minutes, or prompted "Sandstein" to decide in half an hour. In fact it is impossible to decide it that fast. Overall to you personally I have only one question: Did you even read and found the disputed contents of the article to be original research or against the Biography-guidelines? If you don't want to answer the question here, I will put them on your user-discussion-page in latest 48 hours. (Or when my IP changes.) Of course you could even answer now on your User-Discussion-page"

Decline reason: "All of the above is an irrelevent attempt at obfucating the main issue. You were clearly edit warring on the article in question. This block is to stop you from repeatedly reverting that article. I have seen no assurances that you intend to stop this behavior. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:07, 16 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: "EDIT: I add this edit to point out that the decline of my previous unblocking request above did alter the pretended reasons originally given for the block. Now the only reason remaining is "edit-warring". Everything else is not anymore mentioned. That is very handy for the three admins involved in the previous declines, as they now could say there is no more reason for them to answer the questions about those wrong statements they made. Very handy, indeed! END OF EDIT . . . . . . Some citiation from the linked page about edit-warring: "Reverting vandalism is never edit-warring; [...] good-faith changes do not constitue vandalism." From my point of view the changes of "Future Perfect at Sunrise" were not good-faith changes. Reason: He didn't give any discussable reason for his changes in the edit-summary. He didn'T give any reasons on the discussion-page of the article. He didn'T answer question/assertions I made in my edit summaries. And finally: I tried to discuss it with him. But he didn't answer on his discussion page. If that's not vandalism, I don't know what. If he doesn'T answer, I can'T follow the guidelines and tips given on the page about edit-warring: "Try to discuss it first." When his changes were no "good-faith changes" they were clearly vandalism, that's the point it comes down to. If it were "good-faith changes" he still had not reason to claim I would edit-warring: If he doesn'T answer, no discussion could take place. I tried it. He didn't. Beside the aforementioned the page about edit-warring clearly makes a point about what edit-warring is: "Edit warring is the underlying behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time." I can'T see "Future Perfect at Sunrise" edits any different from mine, except that I gave properly reasons why I changed and added content, whereas he didn't properly do it, even if asked: So if he isn't blocked, why am I blocked? I could answer that: He is an admin, and you know him long time, and hey, if you block him, he might not support you next time. Very clever from you? No! That's pathetic and without any spine. The really sad thing about that article is that the main persons behind the surge to have the info about the animal mistreating removed are not fans or supporters or similiar of the very nice and likeable article subject(beside the Foie Grass episode), but if you follow similiar actions on other pages about animal protection in the German wikipedia are people who want to support the businesses profiting by that animal mistreating. I pointed it already out on this discussion page. You maybe or maybe have not realized, that the Admin "Future Perfect at Sunrise" is from Germany. When he edited the English article, he did not accidentally stumble over the English version of that page. Instead of improving the English version of wikipedia he tried to impress on the English version the position of the German version. That should give you enough reason to think more than twice to support "fellow" admins without even critically examine these fellows motivations in future cases of their content manipulation. This is the last unblocking request for the maybe blocking time. If you don't want to start to think yourself first, every more words from me would be a wasting of my time. Don't waste my time!"

Decline reason: "Valid block for edit warring. This page has been protected until the block expires. — Nakon 00:08, 17 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.