If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
21:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
68.132.68.52 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
no reason given for block. Only 1 revert was made. In any case, the edito who I reverted is a notorious troll, and his edits removed sourced uncontroversial without reason given. Is 0RR a policy now?
Decline reason:
Have a closer look at the colored box right above this one; and, by the way, you are Kingshowman engaging in block evasion. Favonian ( talk) 22:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
There clearly is a reason given (violation of the page restrictions in effect at Presidency of Donald Trump). Any reviewing administrator will be able to see that. Good day. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
U
User:Coffee You are Wrong. You failed to explain how I violated the sanctions. How did my 1 revert violate policy? Is 0RR a policy?
A reason for the block was clearly given, and was placed in reflection of an Arbitration Committee enforcement due to the topic being under discretionary sanctions, which allows for uninvolved administrators to apply sanctions and take administrative actions necessary to keep the editing environment collaborative and acceptable. His block was justified. This was the text that I was going to respond to your unblock request with, but Favonian beat me to it, so I'll just leave it as a response instead. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
User: Oshwah, can you show diffs of me violating sanctions? Again , I only made 1 revert. You are mistaken.is 0RR a policy? 68.132.68.52 ( talk) 22:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
68.132.68.52 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Again, I only made 1 revert. I did not violate sanctions. Admin’s comments do not address the fact that i was blocked after a single revert, and so could not have violated sanctions. I understand a reason was given, but the reason was wrong.
Decline reason:
You didn't get consensus before re-instating the content that was removed from the article. This is in violation of a restriction placed on this article in reflection to the discretionary sanctions authorized on this topic, which states, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
68.132.68.52 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
this is absurd. I received no warning. I made 2 edits. The first added a link to the official election results from the FEC. The second reveted another user’s mass removal of well-sourced, uncontroversial material that simply stated that Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump. There is no good reason for this block. Reviewing admin appears to have not even examined the diffs.
Decline reason:
A warning is not required, as clearly stated on the restriction notice visible on the article's talk page. You can argue your views about the content you felt should not have been removed, but it is irrelevant, as the restriction applies to all content. I know you're frustrated, but making repeated unblock requests until you get the result you want is only wasting your time; a successful appeal and unblock is not going to happen. Take the next 24 hours and use this as an opportunity to review understand these policies so that you won't fall into this pit again in the future. I wish you well and best of luck -- ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Drmies (
talk)
03:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
68.132.68.52 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I didn't do anything wrong. With regards to the edit to Dismissal of James Comey, I stated Comey's dismissal is alleged to have constituted obstruction of justice in the lead, which is already stated in the article. In pertinent part, the article already reads as follows: "In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, several media figures, political opponents and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice, while others disagreed.[19][20][21][22]" Hence, my edit adding material already in the article to another part of it is not a blockable offense. I will also note that "obstruction of justice' is in the article 46 times; it was certainly not inappropriate to add it to the lead, given how heavily it figures in the article. The accusation that my edit was "tendentious" is wrong; I was summarizing article content, which is what a lead does. With regards to my edit to Trump-Russia investigations stating that members of Trump's campaign were convicted due to their meetings with Russians, (even though this was not cited as the reason for the block, for the sake of completeness I'll discuss it) please note that this, too, is already repeatedly stated in the article: "On October 5, 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to making false statements to FBI agents relating to contacts he had with agents of the Russian government while working for the Trump campaign" Also, see Michael Flynn for further information. I don't think the admin who reviewed my edits actually took the time to look at them, and made a knee-jerk block without making the effort to see if what I said was A) True, B) already in the article. What I stated were items already in the relevant article that I merely added to the lead. Neither of these edits were worthy of a block. The blocking administrator does not appear to have reviewed the article prior to blocking. Had he done so, he would have noticed that this is not undue, but accurately summarizes what the article is about. Blocking administrators have gotten insanely trigger happy and are blocking without taking any time to understand the edits or the article itself. How can you block without even knowing what's in an article first?
Accept reason:
You are unblocked following discussion with the blocking admin at WP:AE. Sandstein 16:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you User: Sandstein for the unblock. 68.132.68.52 ( talk) 17:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought it said "presidential candidate" not "president"..is a little confusing. Could be clarified. Shouldn't be absolute.. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 11:43 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
00:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
This isn't your first rodeo. Do it again, and this IP won't be able to edit our site for a few years. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
01:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC){{unblock|reason={unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. I didn't restore any offending material that had been challenged. Nor was I given any warning about any edits to the relevant page. I simply made an edit to the article and was immediately blocked for 2 weeks. My edit was, in fact, non-controversial and simply added material to the lead that was already in the article. It is not controversial but a statement of plain, well-known fact that Gates and Manafort were indicted, and that Papadopolous and Flynn pled guilty and were convicted. [[User: Coffee]] is repeatedly misusing his block powers, and I would suggest they be taken away until he learns to use them properly. [[Special:Contributions/68.132.68.52|68.132.68.52]] ([[User talk:68.132.68.52#top|talk]]) 01:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)}}
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
21:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
68.132.68.52 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
no reason given for block. Only 1 revert was made. In any case, the edito who I reverted is a notorious troll, and his edits removed sourced uncontroversial without reason given. Is 0RR a policy now?
Decline reason:
Have a closer look at the colored box right above this one; and, by the way, you are Kingshowman engaging in block evasion. Favonian ( talk) 22:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
There clearly is a reason given (violation of the page restrictions in effect at Presidency of Donald Trump). Any reviewing administrator will be able to see that. Good day. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
U
User:Coffee You are Wrong. You failed to explain how I violated the sanctions. How did my 1 revert violate policy? Is 0RR a policy?
A reason for the block was clearly given, and was placed in reflection of an Arbitration Committee enforcement due to the topic being under discretionary sanctions, which allows for uninvolved administrators to apply sanctions and take administrative actions necessary to keep the editing environment collaborative and acceptable. His block was justified. This was the text that I was going to respond to your unblock request with, but Favonian beat me to it, so I'll just leave it as a response instead. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
User: Oshwah, can you show diffs of me violating sanctions? Again , I only made 1 revert. You are mistaken.is 0RR a policy? 68.132.68.52 ( talk) 22:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
68.132.68.52 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Again, I only made 1 revert. I did not violate sanctions. Admin’s comments do not address the fact that i was blocked after a single revert, and so could not have violated sanctions. I understand a reason was given, but the reason was wrong.
Decline reason:
You didn't get consensus before re-instating the content that was removed from the article. This is in violation of a restriction placed on this article in reflection to the discretionary sanctions authorized on this topic, which states, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
68.132.68.52 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
this is absurd. I received no warning. I made 2 edits. The first added a link to the official election results from the FEC. The second reveted another user’s mass removal of well-sourced, uncontroversial material that simply stated that Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump. There is no good reason for this block. Reviewing admin appears to have not even examined the diffs.
Decline reason:
A warning is not required, as clearly stated on the restriction notice visible on the article's talk page. You can argue your views about the content you felt should not have been removed, but it is irrelevant, as the restriction applies to all content. I know you're frustrated, but making repeated unblock requests until you get the result you want is only wasting your time; a successful appeal and unblock is not going to happen. Take the next 24 hours and use this as an opportunity to review understand these policies so that you won't fall into this pit again in the future. I wish you well and best of luck -- ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Drmies (
talk)
03:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
68.132.68.52 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I didn't do anything wrong. With regards to the edit to Dismissal of James Comey, I stated Comey's dismissal is alleged to have constituted obstruction of justice in the lead, which is already stated in the article. In pertinent part, the article already reads as follows: "In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, several media figures, political opponents and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice, while others disagreed.[19][20][21][22]" Hence, my edit adding material already in the article to another part of it is not a blockable offense. I will also note that "obstruction of justice' is in the article 46 times; it was certainly not inappropriate to add it to the lead, given how heavily it figures in the article. The accusation that my edit was "tendentious" is wrong; I was summarizing article content, which is what a lead does. With regards to my edit to Trump-Russia investigations stating that members of Trump's campaign were convicted due to their meetings with Russians, (even though this was not cited as the reason for the block, for the sake of completeness I'll discuss it) please note that this, too, is already repeatedly stated in the article: "On October 5, 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to making false statements to FBI agents relating to contacts he had with agents of the Russian government while working for the Trump campaign" Also, see Michael Flynn for further information. I don't think the admin who reviewed my edits actually took the time to look at them, and made a knee-jerk block without making the effort to see if what I said was A) True, B) already in the article. What I stated were items already in the relevant article that I merely added to the lead. Neither of these edits were worthy of a block. The blocking administrator does not appear to have reviewed the article prior to blocking. Had he done so, he would have noticed that this is not undue, but accurately summarizes what the article is about. Blocking administrators have gotten insanely trigger happy and are blocking without taking any time to understand the edits or the article itself. How can you block without even knowing what's in an article first?
Accept reason:
You are unblocked following discussion with the blocking admin at WP:AE. Sandstein 16:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you User: Sandstein for the unblock. 68.132.68.52 ( talk) 17:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought it said "presidential candidate" not "president"..is a little confusing. Could be clarified. Shouldn't be absolute.. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 11:43 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
00:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
This isn't your first rodeo. Do it again, and this IP won't be able to edit our site for a few years. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans //
01:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC){{unblock|reason={unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. I didn't restore any offending material that had been challenged. Nor was I given any warning about any edits to the relevant page. I simply made an edit to the article and was immediately blocked for 2 weeks. My edit was, in fact, non-controversial and simply added material to the lead that was already in the article. It is not controversial but a statement of plain, well-known fact that Gates and Manafort were indicted, and that Papadopolous and Flynn pled guilty and were convicted. [[User: Coffee]] is repeatedly misusing his block powers, and I would suggest they be taken away until he learns to use them properly. [[Special:Contributions/68.132.68.52|68.132.68.52]] ([[User talk:68.132.68.52#top|talk]]) 01:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)}}
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |