{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. D P 17:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Redmen44 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why have I been blocked? Once I was warned I stopped and then discussed the issue on the talk pages. I thought the issue was resolved and I apologized for my actions and did not repeat them. I have made very valuable contributions to this site and have learned my lesson. This comes as a shock because I was warned about 3 days ago and I did not edit war again. Please understand that I am not trying to cause problems and when I was warned I stopped warring and discussed. I would like to continue to contribute to this great site so please let me continue to do that. Thank you Redmen44 ( talk) 22:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The last time you were blocked for edit warring, you requested an unblock and said "I have not reverted any of the updates since I was warned". Following that, you avoided another block for edit warring by saying at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring that you did not intend to edit war, and would instead discuss edits. After that, you edit warred again, were blocked, and requested an unblock, saying "Once I was warned I stopped and then discussed the issue on the talk pages". You don't get to keep on edit warring as often as you like provided that each time you are blocked or told that a block is likely you say you won't do it any more. Since neither warnings nor a short block has stopped you continually edit warring on several pages, a longer block is the one thing that may stand a chance of conveying the message "edit warring is unacceptable". Also, the statement "Once I was warned I stopped and then discussed the issue on the talk pages" misses the point. You have been told before that edit warring is unacceptable, have been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and have responded there, and you have even been blocked for edit warring, and appealed against the block, so you are clearly fully aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. You don't have to be told again that edit warring is unacceptable each time you start another edit war. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:35, 2 April 2014 (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.
Redmen44 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I feel that this block should not have been placed on my account. I was warned reference an article Josh Gasser that I had just created. I was warned Result:Not Blocked about edit warring because I was removing a BLP tag that I was confused on what that was. I stopped the warring and left the tag up while I looked for more reliable sources and discussed the topic on the talk pages. That issue seemed to be over but I was then blocked two days later for completely different situation on the Bo Ryan page. I was not edit warring as I was reverting edits by unconfirmed users as they were editing a part of the postseason record on the Bo Ryan page reference his current basketball season that has not ended yet. I have explained this below and you will see below there does seem to be some discrepancy about did I really do any wrong IN THIS CASE? There is now a discussion on the Bo Ryan talk page about edits that I was reverting and stating that I was not totally incorrect in making those edits. Please understand that I am not perfect and I have done things in the past that I am not proud of but this current block was NOT a case of edit warring in my opinion. Thank you for your time. Redmen44 ( talk) 17:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
DangerousPanda did not warn you just about Josh Gasser. He warned you in the context of a report about Gasser. What he said was: "I'm convinced per statements above that such behaviour will never be repeated on Wikipedia." Anyone reading that would understand that you can't edit war anywhere, and yet after that warning you reverted multiple times at Bo Ryan. In the Gasser report, you said you "did not mean to start an edit war." Here, with respect to the Ryan reverts, you say, "I was not creating an edit war". You need to examine your conduct as a whole, not taken in isolated contributions to different articles. Bbb23 ( talk) 22:33, 2 April 2014 (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.
@ Redmen44: I'm not an admin here, but if you're waiting for an independent party to weigh in, I can tell you that by the way this is unfolding, you sound like you need a bit of a break from the wiki anyway. Sometimes when you get angry at other editors, or you get blocked for what you believe to be an unjust cause (although I can tell you the block was completely justified), the best thing to do is walk away for a while and regain your composure. That's essentially what edit warring blocks like these are for, along with protecting the article from further harm. So please, just take the rest of your two weeks and relax away from the wiki. T C N7JM 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked you for two additional weeks for evading your block with User:50.77.171.74.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
23:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC) |
Redmen44 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What??? I haven't been on this site for 4 days and now I see that I have been blocked indefinitely? I stay away from the site and people still want to block me longer? What do I have to do? Please, I have obeyed my block and not even been on the site yet this admin blocks me for something I DID NOT DO! I was waiting until my block was up before I could continue to make valuable contributions to this site and now this? Please help thank you Redmen44 ( talk) 13:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Don't play games with me, Your Highness. Your block has been raised to indef not because of anything you did when you weren't doing anything, but because of what you had done that we hadn't discovered yet: You are a member of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor ... no, wait, actually, you're just a sockpuppet of Carthage44. Which is probably worse. You can read all about why we think so here. — Daniel Case ( talk) 16:10, 7 April 2014 (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.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. D P 17:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Redmen44 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why have I been blocked? Once I was warned I stopped and then discussed the issue on the talk pages. I thought the issue was resolved and I apologized for my actions and did not repeat them. I have made very valuable contributions to this site and have learned my lesson. This comes as a shock because I was warned about 3 days ago and I did not edit war again. Please understand that I am not trying to cause problems and when I was warned I stopped warring and discussed. I would like to continue to contribute to this great site so please let me continue to do that. Thank you Redmen44 ( talk) 22:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The last time you were blocked for edit warring, you requested an unblock and said "I have not reverted any of the updates since I was warned". Following that, you avoided another block for edit warring by saying at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring that you did not intend to edit war, and would instead discuss edits. After that, you edit warred again, were blocked, and requested an unblock, saying "Once I was warned I stopped and then discussed the issue on the talk pages". You don't get to keep on edit warring as often as you like provided that each time you are blocked or told that a block is likely you say you won't do it any more. Since neither warnings nor a short block has stopped you continually edit warring on several pages, a longer block is the one thing that may stand a chance of conveying the message "edit warring is unacceptable". Also, the statement "Once I was warned I stopped and then discussed the issue on the talk pages" misses the point. You have been told before that edit warring is unacceptable, have been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and have responded there, and you have even been blocked for edit warring, and appealed against the block, so you are clearly fully aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. You don't have to be told again that edit warring is unacceptable each time you start another edit war. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:35, 2 April 2014 (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.
Redmen44 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I feel that this block should not have been placed on my account. I was warned reference an article Josh Gasser that I had just created. I was warned Result:Not Blocked about edit warring because I was removing a BLP tag that I was confused on what that was. I stopped the warring and left the tag up while I looked for more reliable sources and discussed the topic on the talk pages. That issue seemed to be over but I was then blocked two days later for completely different situation on the Bo Ryan page. I was not edit warring as I was reverting edits by unconfirmed users as they were editing a part of the postseason record on the Bo Ryan page reference his current basketball season that has not ended yet. I have explained this below and you will see below there does seem to be some discrepancy about did I really do any wrong IN THIS CASE? There is now a discussion on the Bo Ryan talk page about edits that I was reverting and stating that I was not totally incorrect in making those edits. Please understand that I am not perfect and I have done things in the past that I am not proud of but this current block was NOT a case of edit warring in my opinion. Thank you for your time. Redmen44 ( talk) 17:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
DangerousPanda did not warn you just about Josh Gasser. He warned you in the context of a report about Gasser. What he said was: "I'm convinced per statements above that such behaviour will never be repeated on Wikipedia." Anyone reading that would understand that you can't edit war anywhere, and yet after that warning you reverted multiple times at Bo Ryan. In the Gasser report, you said you "did not mean to start an edit war." Here, with respect to the Ryan reverts, you say, "I was not creating an edit war". You need to examine your conduct as a whole, not taken in isolated contributions to different articles. Bbb23 ( talk) 22:33, 2 April 2014 (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.
@ Redmen44: I'm not an admin here, but if you're waiting for an independent party to weigh in, I can tell you that by the way this is unfolding, you sound like you need a bit of a break from the wiki anyway. Sometimes when you get angry at other editors, or you get blocked for what you believe to be an unjust cause (although I can tell you the block was completely justified), the best thing to do is walk away for a while and regain your composure. That's essentially what edit warring blocks like these are for, along with protecting the article from further harm. So please, just take the rest of your two weeks and relax away from the wiki. T C N7JM 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked you for two additional weeks for evading your block with User:50.77.171.74.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
23:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC) |
Redmen44 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What??? I haven't been on this site for 4 days and now I see that I have been blocked indefinitely? I stay away from the site and people still want to block me longer? What do I have to do? Please, I have obeyed my block and not even been on the site yet this admin blocks me for something I DID NOT DO! I was waiting until my block was up before I could continue to make valuable contributions to this site and now this? Please help thank you Redmen44 ( talk) 13:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Don't play games with me, Your Highness. Your block has been raised to indef not because of anything you did when you weren't doing anything, but because of what you had done that we hadn't discovered yet: You are a member of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor ... no, wait, actually, you're just a sockpuppet of Carthage44. Which is probably worse. You can read all about why we think so here. — Daniel Case ( talk) 16:10, 7 April 2014 (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.