From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: "Nishkid64 and bilnguyen are wrong in removing material which has been allowed on other wikipedia pages, refer to the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Test%2C_2007-08_Border-Gavaskar_Trophy). Procter's biography should contain a section on controversy he has courted with his inaction in the Oval Test of 2006, his banning of Inzamam for 5 macthes for claiming a false catch and then allowing Ponting to get away with the same. This question has been raised by many ex-cricketers and there are references to this in the link above. Nishkid and bingyuen (or whatever) are not unbiased. They never gave me guidance on how to say or edit my posts to elevate standards. They removed my posts. This points to the fact that they are not fair admins. I understand their is a power trip going on here with Nishkid but the truth is the truth and Procter's page has to bring all aspects of his career to light. Also the first sentence that he ias as good as Ian Botham or Kapil dev is Bingyeun personal opinion and he hasnt cityed it, but Nishkid hasnt removed it. I request a review of Nishkid's actions and Binguyens edits"
Decline reason: "3RR is 3RR. You were warned, you persisted, and you were blocked. Do it again, it will happen again, for longer. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:22, 2 April 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: "You failed to tell me which policy is violated by my edits. You failed to arbitrate the content I provided you vis a vis their stand. The whole reason I am seeking independent review is to understand why my edits violate wiki policy if I am not saying anything different than what has already been said on wikipedia somewhere else. Would it be possible to edit the wikipedia entry and point tothe relevant section in this other article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Test%2C_2007-08_Border-Gavaskar_Trophy . Please dont tell me what I already know : Why I was blocked. Tell me why my posts are somehow violating the policy when similar material is already posted on wikipedia. Tell me if I need to do anything more to get independent review and a fair shake, if such process does not exist, please let me know if legal action over stifling free speech is my only recourse."
Decline reason: "You were warned about the three revert rule; you were told before you blocked about it; you persisted; you were then blocked, and notified it was because of these changes. You then proceeded to erase those warnings and notices from this page, but we can still read them, as can you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 2 April 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 edited the talk page for privacy reasons. You fail to understand my question, my reason for this dialogue is that I can not understand why only I was blocked and the other guy was not blocked. I think that was biased. Instead of helping me (I tried to initiate dialogue with both of them through talk page and email to Nishkid) but nobody explains to me why my posts are violating some rule. I am not fighting or requesting to get my block removed, I want to understand if this is wikipedia, people's encyclopedia, then why Admins and their chosen ones and only their interpretation is allowed. Does anyone see a problem in that? My edits are certainly not ridiculous or unprecedented. Several biographies have controversy sections. You can choose to ignore my pleas of help in understanding your actions and repeat what you have already told me (why I was blocked) or tell me why my edits were wrong (which is what I have initiated this review for)"
Decline reason: "Please stop abusing the unblock template. And you will want to read WP:3RR and WP:EW which explains why you have been blocked. Also, WP:BLP. — Yamla (talk) 02:29, 2 April 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.
- Enticer, I blocked you for violating WP:3RR and inserting libelous material to a biography of a living person (BLP). The details about Procter's skills were not added by Blnguyen. They were added almost a year ago by another editor. I explained clearly via e-mail (did you check?) that removing sensitive libelous info from a BLP is an exemption from the 3RR rule. You both made over 4 reverts, but Blnguyen was removing libelous info, while you were adding it. That's why you were blocked. In the email, I also explained that a controversy section may be appropriate, but it is unacceptable based on your wording and lack of references that actually back up your statements. Please find reliable sources that actually mention the controversy regarding Procter's actions (like the Gavaskar article) and post them on the talk page. I'll check it out and tell you if there will be any issues with your edits in the future. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
