Bazzajf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Excessive sanction unwarranted and ill-founded, please refer to evidence
Decline reason:
Clearly uncivil behavior immediately after being unblocked, and a long history of problems.
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.
Thank you for experimenting with the page Limerick on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. - CobaltBlueTony 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop adding {{
POV}} to the article on
Wales. There is a clear consensus on this issue, as shown by the discussion on
the talk page. --
Stemonitis
08:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Your use of the word "alleged" in Sol Campbell is totally useless unless you provide details of who is doing the alleging; without that context then your additions are mere repetition of the same rumours, which from the point of view of libel law is no different from making the allegation yourself. Wikipedia has come under a lot of flak recently for possible defamations, which highlight how important it is that Wikipedia's content is accurate and verifiable.
Your recent edits to this article are not only unsourced, but contravene several Wikipedia policies and guidelines: The use of weasel words such as "Many supporters" and "It is speculated" is strongly discouraged, your speculation about Campbell's mental condition is not verifiable and the insinuation that homosexuality is "shameful" or something to feel "guilty" about contravenes neutral point of view. Please read the above policies and bear them in mind when making future edits. Qwghlm 11:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Just a quick warning to say that if you continue to vandalise User:Stemonitis's user page (editing it after he's asked you to stop, and inserting nonsense letters into the text, is vandalism), I'll be reporting you for it. This is likely to lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. I suggest you stop. Vashti 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
<User:Nlu|Nlu]] ( talk) 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kim,
You continue to alter my user page despite my requests for you not to. Your edit summary of "factual amendment" is false — this is an issue of terminology, not facts. You show no interest in engaging in discussion, but prefer to instigate edit wars. Please desist. -- Stemonitis 10:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Bazzajf 11:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You are warned to stop harassing Stemonitis. I have protected his userpage, and any further fiddling (however inoffensive you consider it) relative to him or his edits will be met with a block. Please consider taking a non-disruptive approach to Wikipedia. Syrthiss 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The only reason I have not yet blocked you is that I did one of the reverts myself. However, next revert, I will do it because by that time, you are at 6RR (and no, they do not have to be the exact same reverts!). Furthermore, watch your language, your langauge is not making you a lot of friends. Wikiepdia can be a really nice place, but if you repeatedly bump into admins for violations of basic policies, it becomes very quickly something else. It is up to you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for reporting you to 3RR when I was in violation myself (inadvertantly, but still in violation). I should have gone about it differently, and having you blocked was not the ideal solution. When your block expires, I urge you to discuss the issue on the
Talk:Jeb Bush page, so that we don't again end up with multiple people reverting your reversions as we did before. For my part, I will not revert your edits to that page again until a clear consensus is developed on the talk page. I hope you find this satisfactory.
Powers
12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
I too thought it was unjust to not block both of you equally per the written policy, but looking at the clock, the block time would have now passed and the other editor has honored his 24hrs block as if it had been imposed. Please consider moving ahead. Can I help to try to work with you both on fixing up this article? (caveat: I'm probably too politically charged with Florida politics to really mix up in a content dispute :( ) -- Flawiki 01:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bazzajf for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familliar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. FRCP11 12:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 12h for incivility. You've been warned; please calm down a bit William M. Connolley 13:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I ndáil le Nóta seo, Cen Fath? Abair liom cad chuige, mar, go dtí seo ní raibh fios agam túsa. Agus, ár do Leathanach baile, tá bréige o an Template a dheana mé go bunaidh anseo.-- Irishpunktom\ talk 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Leave Stemonitis alone. He/she clearly doesn't want your comments on the talk page, and calling someone a bigot is a personal attack and can result in another block from editing. I realize you are passionate about this subject, but the behavior you are exhibiting here usually has only one result: a community ban on your account from editing. Please be more mindful about how you conduct yourself here. Syrthiss 11:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for personal attacks per warnings above. Syrthiss 14:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Bazzajf 15:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record: I by no means agree with your statement on my user page, but I maintain your right to say it. To state that I have "no problem with [the] description" is stretching the truth. I deny all "political bias and bigotry"; I deny any "anti-Irish bias". I consider your statements therefore untrue, but, as I say, I will allow you to express them if you must. -- Stemonitis 09:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Bazzajf, don't get me wrong. I know you're a human being and I wish you all the best. However, your constant edit warring on user pages (and elsewhere), your generally arrogant attitude, and your mind-numbing self-righteousness can all get tiring very quickly. I don't know if you exhibit similar personality traits in your personal life, but if you do, you're going to have to do some deeply serious soul-searching before you will ever be capable of giving AND receiving love and appreciation. Please, my good friend, get a life. 152.163.100.136 12:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record, you are quite wrong. Vashti 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea who Vishanti is, but I do know that your responses to my good wishes (the initial post) have pretty much proved my point. PLEASE calm down and re-evaluate your life, values, and overall personality. I'm worried about you, and other people like you. 152.163.100.136 16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The following text is from WP:ADMIN. I think this is what you were looking for (based on your message at User talk:Syrthiss). -- Stemonitis 15:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil and avoid making personal attacks, in relation to this edit summary. Ansell 12:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Have a nice day. Adam 04:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not stalking you; you just happened to insult someone on a talk page that happens to be on my watchlist. Fortunately for you, I don't take " Muppet" as an insult. =) However, while I'm not going to seek out your contributions and make sure you adhere to our no personal attacks policy, I'm also not going to stop calling you on it when I see it. Powers 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You removed a large amount of sourced material from Henry Jackson without discussion, which was reverted. This material has been discussed ad infinitum on the talk page by many editors, and the current consensus is that it should stay. If you want to change that consensus, please feel free to contribute to the talk page. - Merzbow 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You have a month off. Use the time to read WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Harassment. -- ajn ( talk) 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You're like a broken record. Bore elsewhere please. Thanks. Bazzajf 21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You now have two months off. Use the time to read WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Harassment and WP:SOCK. -- ajn ( talk) 08:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This case is closed and the result has been published at the link above. 8bitjake is banned from editing articles about poltical figures from Washington State, and he is placed on Probation. These remedies also apply to Bazzajf and 62.77.181.16.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- Tony Sidaway 20:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by continued disruption. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead.
You have come back from your block and have made precisely two edits, both of which are uncivil. Are you actually intending to contribute to the encyclopaedia in any way? I am going to unprotect your Talk page to allow you to respond, but please be aware that you are currently blocked until we can establish whether you are here to play at trolls or whether you intend to contribute in a meaningful way. Guy 11:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Bazzajf. I would like to try to help you understand why your statements "I will report you for admin abuse seeing as you are not up to speed and a bit inept in timing issues" and "Get a move on and do it" are not civil and resulted in your re-blocking. Do you see why someone might not like to be called "inept"? Do you see why Deskana might object to the threat of being reported for abuse of administrator powers? Do you think that threat was helpful in any way? Powers T 13:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Bazzajf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Excessive sanction for harmless comments
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
Can somebody please indicate whether I am wasting my time appealing an indefinite block for what were two relatively tame comments in terms of icivility in my opinion. Do I have any further recourse or am I to forget about WP and move on? If as I expect, there is a nil response to this question, I take it that it is the latter? Thank you all and I hope you have a more fulfilling and productive time in the WP community than I seem to have done. I maintain an idefinite block imposed on the basis it was is totally unjustified. Alll the best. Bazzajf 08:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Bazzajf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Excessive sanction unwarranted and ill-founded, please refer to evidence
Decline reason:
Clearly uncivil behavior immediately after being unblocked, and a long history of problems.
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.
Thank you for experimenting with the page Limerick on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. - CobaltBlueTony 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop adding {{
POV}} to the article on
Wales. There is a clear consensus on this issue, as shown by the discussion on
the talk page. --
Stemonitis
08:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Your use of the word "alleged" in Sol Campbell is totally useless unless you provide details of who is doing the alleging; without that context then your additions are mere repetition of the same rumours, which from the point of view of libel law is no different from making the allegation yourself. Wikipedia has come under a lot of flak recently for possible defamations, which highlight how important it is that Wikipedia's content is accurate and verifiable.
Your recent edits to this article are not only unsourced, but contravene several Wikipedia policies and guidelines: The use of weasel words such as "Many supporters" and "It is speculated" is strongly discouraged, your speculation about Campbell's mental condition is not verifiable and the insinuation that homosexuality is "shameful" or something to feel "guilty" about contravenes neutral point of view. Please read the above policies and bear them in mind when making future edits. Qwghlm 11:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Just a quick warning to say that if you continue to vandalise User:Stemonitis's user page (editing it after he's asked you to stop, and inserting nonsense letters into the text, is vandalism), I'll be reporting you for it. This is likely to lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. I suggest you stop. Vashti 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
<User:Nlu|Nlu]] ( talk) 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kim,
You continue to alter my user page despite my requests for you not to. Your edit summary of "factual amendment" is false — this is an issue of terminology, not facts. You show no interest in engaging in discussion, but prefer to instigate edit wars. Please desist. -- Stemonitis 10:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Bazzajf 11:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You are warned to stop harassing Stemonitis. I have protected his userpage, and any further fiddling (however inoffensive you consider it) relative to him or his edits will be met with a block. Please consider taking a non-disruptive approach to Wikipedia. Syrthiss 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The only reason I have not yet blocked you is that I did one of the reverts myself. However, next revert, I will do it because by that time, you are at 6RR (and no, they do not have to be the exact same reverts!). Furthermore, watch your language, your langauge is not making you a lot of friends. Wikiepdia can be a really nice place, but if you repeatedly bump into admins for violations of basic policies, it becomes very quickly something else. It is up to you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for reporting you to 3RR when I was in violation myself (inadvertantly, but still in violation). I should have gone about it differently, and having you blocked was not the ideal solution. When your block expires, I urge you to discuss the issue on the
Talk:Jeb Bush page, so that we don't again end up with multiple people reverting your reversions as we did before. For my part, I will not revert your edits to that page again until a clear consensus is developed on the talk page. I hope you find this satisfactory.
Powers
12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
I too thought it was unjust to not block both of you equally per the written policy, but looking at the clock, the block time would have now passed and the other editor has honored his 24hrs block as if it had been imposed. Please consider moving ahead. Can I help to try to work with you both on fixing up this article? (caveat: I'm probably too politically charged with Florida politics to really mix up in a content dispute :( ) -- Flawiki 01:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bazzajf for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familliar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. FRCP11 12:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 12h for incivility. You've been warned; please calm down a bit William M. Connolley 13:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I ndáil le Nóta seo, Cen Fath? Abair liom cad chuige, mar, go dtí seo ní raibh fios agam túsa. Agus, ár do Leathanach baile, tá bréige o an Template a dheana mé go bunaidh anseo.-- Irishpunktom\ talk 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Leave Stemonitis alone. He/she clearly doesn't want your comments on the talk page, and calling someone a bigot is a personal attack and can result in another block from editing. I realize you are passionate about this subject, but the behavior you are exhibiting here usually has only one result: a community ban on your account from editing. Please be more mindful about how you conduct yourself here. Syrthiss 11:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for personal attacks per warnings above. Syrthiss 14:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Bazzajf 15:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record: I by no means agree with your statement on my user page, but I maintain your right to say it. To state that I have "no problem with [the] description" is stretching the truth. I deny all "political bias and bigotry"; I deny any "anti-Irish bias". I consider your statements therefore untrue, but, as I say, I will allow you to express them if you must. -- Stemonitis 09:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Bazzajf, don't get me wrong. I know you're a human being and I wish you all the best. However, your constant edit warring on user pages (and elsewhere), your generally arrogant attitude, and your mind-numbing self-righteousness can all get tiring very quickly. I don't know if you exhibit similar personality traits in your personal life, but if you do, you're going to have to do some deeply serious soul-searching before you will ever be capable of giving AND receiving love and appreciation. Please, my good friend, get a life. 152.163.100.136 12:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record, you are quite wrong. Vashti 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea who Vishanti is, but I do know that your responses to my good wishes (the initial post) have pretty much proved my point. PLEASE calm down and re-evaluate your life, values, and overall personality. I'm worried about you, and other people like you. 152.163.100.136 16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The following text is from WP:ADMIN. I think this is what you were looking for (based on your message at User talk:Syrthiss). -- Stemonitis 15:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil and avoid making personal attacks, in relation to this edit summary. Ansell 12:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Have a nice day. Adam 04:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not stalking you; you just happened to insult someone on a talk page that happens to be on my watchlist. Fortunately for you, I don't take " Muppet" as an insult. =) However, while I'm not going to seek out your contributions and make sure you adhere to our no personal attacks policy, I'm also not going to stop calling you on it when I see it. Powers 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You removed a large amount of sourced material from Henry Jackson without discussion, which was reverted. This material has been discussed ad infinitum on the talk page by many editors, and the current consensus is that it should stay. If you want to change that consensus, please feel free to contribute to the talk page. - Merzbow 17:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You have a month off. Use the time to read WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Harassment. -- ajn ( talk) 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You're like a broken record. Bore elsewhere please. Thanks. Bazzajf 21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You now have two months off. Use the time to read WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Harassment and WP:SOCK. -- ajn ( talk) 08:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This case is closed and the result has been published at the link above. 8bitjake is banned from editing articles about poltical figures from Washington State, and he is placed on Probation. These remedies also apply to Bazzajf and 62.77.181.16.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- Tony Sidaway 20:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by continued disruption. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead.
You have come back from your block and have made precisely two edits, both of which are uncivil. Are you actually intending to contribute to the encyclopaedia in any way? I am going to unprotect your Talk page to allow you to respond, but please be aware that you are currently blocked until we can establish whether you are here to play at trolls or whether you intend to contribute in a meaningful way. Guy 11:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Bazzajf. I would like to try to help you understand why your statements "I will report you for admin abuse seeing as you are not up to speed and a bit inept in timing issues" and "Get a move on and do it" are not civil and resulted in your re-blocking. Do you see why someone might not like to be called "inept"? Do you see why Deskana might object to the threat of being reported for abuse of administrator powers? Do you think that threat was helpful in any way? Powers T 13:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Bazzajf ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Excessive sanction for harmless comments
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
Can somebody please indicate whether I am wasting my time appealing an indefinite block for what were two relatively tame comments in terms of icivility in my opinion. Do I have any further recourse or am I to forget about WP and move on? If as I expect, there is a nil response to this question, I take it that it is the latter? Thank you all and I hope you have a more fulfilling and productive time in the WP community than I seem to have done. I maintain an idefinite block imposed on the basis it was is totally unjustified. Alll the best. Bazzajf 08:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)