Howdy, you're a bit behind. My change was made & was self-reverted, all on November 18. GoodDay ( talk) 15:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so you have an ANI, a now-closed 3RR report ... you've been chastised for not following policy on proper escalation, and calls for WP:BOOMERANG. Can you take a step back, breathe deeply, and recognize that although you feel you're doing the right thing, you're actually causing more disruption than the other user? Step back - breathe - focus. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
You have been
blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that
vandalism (including page blanking or addition of
random text),
spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations,
personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning
neutral point of view and
biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.
Ruhrfisch
><>°°
14:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Sheodred ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was blocked by an admin/editor who was involved in the same article I was editing,I only was making the edits under the guidelines of IMOS, which were being ignored for the most part. The blocking admin also reverted edits a number of times on the article involved, and I think it is highly inappropiate that he was the one that blocked me. I defended myself here, a week I feel is also a bit harsh. Sheodred ( talk) 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Accept reason:
It looks like Ruhrfisch has already unblocked you, when he recognized that he was involved. Are you still unable to edit? I tried to find an autoblock, but the interface seemed to indicate that it wasn't active when I tried to unblock it. Syrthiss ( talk) 15:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Sheodred. I've been reviewing WP:AN3#User:Sheodred reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: ) which still needs to be closed by an admin. It is regrettable that an involved admin blocked you, although they then corrected their mistake. Meanwhile, I'm afraid that your actions would normally qualify for a block, since it represents long-term warring about the use of 'Anglo-Irish' to refer to Shackleton. (On the merits I think you may be correct, but that's not my call. The advice of WP:IMOS is not an exception to 3RR). If you will promise to cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles for one month, I'd be willing to close the 3RR case with no action. You can still make recommendations on talk pages. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Whilst i don't know if i can agree to your slightly emotive edit summary, good call none the less, never actually noticed how out of place it was when i wikilinked it. Mabuska (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, would you please discuss your edit to Mary Shelley on the article's talk page? Your original post was that "According to Wikipedia are not the bios of people born in the United Kingdom be referred to by their home countries?" but I cannot find this in the WP:MOS anywhere and would appreciate a more specific quotation of the MOS or policy / guideline in question. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, ArbCom are next after AN. They are the highest Wiki authority. If AN doesn't get responses, ArbCom certainly will. They've already blocked Irish agendas in the past, as well as banning mulitple editors with agendas. So they know what they'll be dealing with when I throw your huge list of disruptive edits at them. Either way, don't think no admin response means I don't have other avenues to report you via. Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 09:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
To be sure that you are aware of the provisions of the WP:TROUBLES case I'm leaving the official notice for you. Noticing that you've engaged in a good-faith discussion at WT:IMOS reduces my concern. For the record, there was a 3RR case concerning your edits at Ernest Shackleton and the link is here. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
EdJohnston ( talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
To clarify to observers this notice is about my self-imposed restriction until the 1/1/12, this notice was placed here in order to make it official I can still make proposals and comment, that is all. Sheodred ( talk) 17:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I have raised this issue at AN/I. You are not squeaky clean in this issue, so expect criticism. I suggest taking it on board. -- Errant ( chat!) 00:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked you indefinitely for using your talk page abusively. Please contact me via email if you want to discuss the block. You can also send an email to the Arbitration Committee, and I will be posting on AN/I for review. causa sui ( talk) 17:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Per our private email conversation, I shortened the block to 1 week and restored your talk page access. causa sui ( talk) 00:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Due to your block evasion with TheOneWhoWalks ( talk · contribs), I have reset your block and extended it to 2 weeks. Your block will now expire 2 weeks from now. You are advised that further block evasion will lead to you possibly being indefinitely blocked. Regards, – MuZemike 23:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Snowded and Barts1a - MarcusBritish stop adding fuel to the fire for your actions if you keep them up will boomerang. If either side is baiting each other - just ignore it! It's hard to do but it's the best option. Mabuska (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012! |
In the sincere hope that 2012 is a better year for all of us, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC) |
Regarding your edit of January 3 which changes his nationality to Irish again. You did not provide an edit summary and you did not discuss this change on the talk page. Please keep in mind the warning which I left for all editors at Talk:John Tyndall#Dispute about Tyndall's nationality. Unless you obtained a specific consensus somewhere in favor of your change to 'Irish' I suggest you should revert your edit. I am considering an indefinite block. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 06:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Details |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Your block can be lifted if you will agree to stop making any edits regarding Ireland or people connected with Ireland on articles or talk pages, or on any policies or style rules regarding Ireland, indefinitely. I am requesting a very wide restriction because:
With passage of time, this restriction might be reconsidered. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I only bring the contributions of another editor into this because it is relevant what I feel to be a punitive block, no community discussion and I was not even advised to take a mentor or anything, just BANG, indef blocked. Which is why I am leaving this project, there are too many admins who have treated me non-impartially and have ignored my concerns when I brought-up MarcusBritish's interaction-violations on my talk page and off-wiki threats on [ [6]]'s talk page to them, when they could not be interpreted as dated (hence no sanctions now because it is conveniently retroactive), and I have had enough of it. TheFortunateSon ( talk) 14:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your block in relation to disputes around nationality. Thank you. -- RA ( talk) 20:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Sheodred ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Requesting review of my block with discussion TheFortunateSon ( talk) 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Uh, if you want your block reviewed it might be a good idea if you explain why you think it should be reviewed, and of course the very recent block evasion pretty much dooms any chance you have at the moment. See WP:GAB and more specifically WP:NOTTHEM and of course WP:EVADE before posting another request. Thanks. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:30, 16 January 2012 (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.
I would appreciate if you showed an even hand towards other disruptive edits as we see here [7] you have taken no action whatsoever against him or the edit-warring admin who wrongly blocked me before here [8]. I am constantly being singled out here and you have ignored these two users and MarcusBritish's repeated topic ban violations and incivility.
I made no edits under that IP that was a violation as there is nothing under WP:Sock that prohibits making an edit-warring report Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections..
I acknowledge that IP was me, but I would not have made that report if you demonstrated that there was uniformity and an even-handed approach, which in my honest opinion was not fulfilled, you were ignorant of Seanwal111111's multiple disruptive edits but not mine, which was a single edit which was backed up with a coherent explanation as people will see from the details of the block. , which I feel is not going to be reviewd anytime soon, so I will give it a month or two before I request again.
And regarding this account WinterIsComingOdran. I was trying to start a clean slate, and despite my positive contributions I was unable to continue my positive contributions and clean state because of the usual opposing editor who has an axe to grind for me, so obviously the only way I can really start afresh is getting my block reviewed. TheFortunateSon ( talk) 17:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyway this is it, I won't be back for a while, hopefuly things will have improved here and in real-life when I apply for an unblock again. TheFortunateSon ( talk) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Liam Neeson". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
00:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am blocked for the moment, so I will not be participating. TheFortunateSon ( talk) 01:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This probably did more to prevent your future unblock than any of your actions before now. This is a volunteer project. There is no time limit. I reviewed it earlier, saw nothing that convinced me that the problem would not recur later, but chose not to decline it. Playing "boo hoo, nobody actioned it, so screw you" is the exact wrong attitude we want on Wikipedia ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I have received your request for a review of your block by email, which expanded a great deal upon the block review you posted on, and later deleted from your userpage. Whilst I am personally unfamiliar with all of the details leading to your block, I have to say that I found your propositions for a return to editing persuasive. I would therefore encourage you to post a new unblock request, including all of what you said to me in the email. Please be patient whilst an administrator takes the time to review the block; he or she will probably need to consult with the admins already involved.
Should your request be declined, your last course of appeal lies with the Ban Appeal Subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee. Before making a request to the BASC, you should follow these instructions. -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 17:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Sheodred ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi I have an outstanding issue about a block I received a whilst ago, I believe it was disproportionate to what I did, I was given an indefinite block for what was perceived to be long term edit-warring which is not true, I always engaged in discussion on the talk pages, brought up proposals on the relevant talk pages, and even made meaningful contriubtions to good articles, I believe that I have been unfairly treated by a certain "cabal" of editors, who seemed more interested in hounding me rather then helping me become a better editor and being civil. I have had time to reflect over the course of my block, and I admit that my edits can be interpreted as disruptive from a certain perspective, I will not engage in any edits to nationalities relating to Irish nationalities without prior discussion first and reliable sources and I am aslo willing to self-impose a 1RR, but I assure you my contributions are not solely on Irish related issues but others also. I did cause some problems for myself at the start of my indef block because I evaded the block but only to start on a clean slate, I edited constructively when I tried to evade and did not engage in disruptive edits, but yes it was still a breach of rules, but my intentions were good. I created articles on Enable Ireland and Ogra Chorcai. I would like to start on a clean slate but can only do so if my block is reviewed, and would ike a mentor, Rannpháirtí anaithnid would be my ideal mentor he has always been understanding and was always impartial in disputes that arose, he also managed to avoid getting dragged into horrible disputes on talk pages and edit-wars on Irish articles with opposing editors, I have a lot to learn from him judging from his approach to articles and users here. NeoSheodred ( talk) 12:54 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
There's too much wrong here for this unblock request to be accepted. First of all, you were using this account to evade your block (again) two days ago. You still do not seem to grasp what edit warring is or why it is not acceptable. And finally, you insist on blaming a "cabal" of editors instead of focusing on your own behavior. TN X Man 19:06, 3 February 2012 (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.
I will just move over to wikiversity indefinitely, as much as there are decent and well-meaning editors here, who uphold neutralality and are happy in helping each other out and wikimentoring unfortunate lost souls like myself, there is simply too much of the opposite type here, I may or may not see you guys in six months, I will do better on that project and do my best to avoid people like MarcusBritish and their companions. Fare thee well. NeoSheodred ( talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Details |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
![]() Sheodred ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: It has been over six months since I have been blocked and in that time I have had a lot of time to reflect and address things of a personal nature, I am a different person from what I was at that time, and I have come to understand the futility of getting too personally involved and drawn into pointless tit-for-tat comments and edit-disputes, most notably ones relating to nationality, no matter how right or wrong one is. I have learnt about such topics there will always one who will be vehemently opposed to your POV even if it is illogical, foolish or wrong and vice versa of course and that the most important aspect of edits is not the edits themselves but the reaction/response gives to opposing editors. I took the advice of my peers who sought to counsel me after the block I received, and I assure them and the admins that I have no more intention of being dragged into such disputes. I hope the period of taken leave of anything to do with wikipedia has proved that. I would like the chance to start afresh on a clean slate. NeoSheodred ( talk) 14:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Accept reason: After review with the blocking admin, and with your acceptance of restrictions, I am unblocking. The following restrictions must continue to appear here on your talkpage for the duration, and will be listed at WP:RESTRICT:
Any violation of the above will lead to a return to an indefinite block ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Details |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Going out on a limb hereClearly, with no action on this unblock in 5 days, it's not going to happen. Personally, I'm a bit perturbed by your attempts to negotiate. I'm also cheesed at your belief that you actually need to be on the list of people formally-warned about the Troubles restrictions to have been bound by it. It makes zero sense for you to return to the articles that got you into trouble. Although there is some sign of personal growth, I'm not 100% convinced. Here are my proposed restrictions based on things said above, and they really aren't negotiable:
( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 16:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Howdy, you're a bit behind. My change was made & was self-reverted, all on November 18. GoodDay ( talk) 15:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so you have an ANI, a now-closed 3RR report ... you've been chastised for not following policy on proper escalation, and calls for WP:BOOMERANG. Can you take a step back, breathe deeply, and recognize that although you feel you're doing the right thing, you're actually causing more disruption than the other user? Step back - breathe - focus. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
You have been
blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that
vandalism (including page blanking or addition of
random text),
spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations,
personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning
neutral point of view and
biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.
Ruhrfisch
><>°°
14:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Sheodred ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was blocked by an admin/editor who was involved in the same article I was editing,I only was making the edits under the guidelines of IMOS, which were being ignored for the most part. The blocking admin also reverted edits a number of times on the article involved, and I think it is highly inappropiate that he was the one that blocked me. I defended myself here, a week I feel is also a bit harsh. Sheodred ( talk) 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Accept reason:
It looks like Ruhrfisch has already unblocked you, when he recognized that he was involved. Are you still unable to edit? I tried to find an autoblock, but the interface seemed to indicate that it wasn't active when I tried to unblock it. Syrthiss ( talk) 15:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Sheodred. I've been reviewing WP:AN3#User:Sheodred reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: ) which still needs to be closed by an admin. It is regrettable that an involved admin blocked you, although they then corrected their mistake. Meanwhile, I'm afraid that your actions would normally qualify for a block, since it represents long-term warring about the use of 'Anglo-Irish' to refer to Shackleton. (On the merits I think you may be correct, but that's not my call. The advice of WP:IMOS is not an exception to 3RR). If you will promise to cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles for one month, I'd be willing to close the 3RR case with no action. You can still make recommendations on talk pages. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Whilst i don't know if i can agree to your slightly emotive edit summary, good call none the less, never actually noticed how out of place it was when i wikilinked it. Mabuska (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, would you please discuss your edit to Mary Shelley on the article's talk page? Your original post was that "According to Wikipedia are not the bios of people born in the United Kingdom be referred to by their home countries?" but I cannot find this in the WP:MOS anywhere and would appreciate a more specific quotation of the MOS or policy / guideline in question. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, ArbCom are next after AN. They are the highest Wiki authority. If AN doesn't get responses, ArbCom certainly will. They've already blocked Irish agendas in the past, as well as banning mulitple editors with agendas. So they know what they'll be dealing with when I throw your huge list of disruptive edits at them. Either way, don't think no admin response means I don't have other avenues to report you via. Ma®©usBritish [ Chat • RFF 09:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
To be sure that you are aware of the provisions of the WP:TROUBLES case I'm leaving the official notice for you. Noticing that you've engaged in a good-faith discussion at WT:IMOS reduces my concern. For the record, there was a 3RR case concerning your edits at Ernest Shackleton and the link is here. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
EdJohnston ( talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
To clarify to observers this notice is about my self-imposed restriction until the 1/1/12, this notice was placed here in order to make it official I can still make proposals and comment, that is all. Sheodred ( talk) 17:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I have raised this issue at AN/I. You are not squeaky clean in this issue, so expect criticism. I suggest taking it on board. -- Errant ( chat!) 00:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked you indefinitely for using your talk page abusively. Please contact me via email if you want to discuss the block. You can also send an email to the Arbitration Committee, and I will be posting on AN/I for review. causa sui ( talk) 17:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Per our private email conversation, I shortened the block to 1 week and restored your talk page access. causa sui ( talk) 00:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Due to your block evasion with TheOneWhoWalks ( talk · contribs), I have reset your block and extended it to 2 weeks. Your block will now expire 2 weeks from now. You are advised that further block evasion will lead to you possibly being indefinitely blocked. Regards, – MuZemike 23:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Snowded and Barts1a - MarcusBritish stop adding fuel to the fire for your actions if you keep them up will boomerang. If either side is baiting each other - just ignore it! It's hard to do but it's the best option. Mabuska (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012! |
In the sincere hope that 2012 is a better year for all of us, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC) |
Regarding your edit of January 3 which changes his nationality to Irish again. You did not provide an edit summary and you did not discuss this change on the talk page. Please keep in mind the warning which I left for all editors at Talk:John Tyndall#Dispute about Tyndall's nationality. Unless you obtained a specific consensus somewhere in favor of your change to 'Irish' I suggest you should revert your edit. I am considering an indefinite block. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 06:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Details |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Your block can be lifted if you will agree to stop making any edits regarding Ireland or people connected with Ireland on articles or talk pages, or on any policies or style rules regarding Ireland, indefinitely. I am requesting a very wide restriction because:
With passage of time, this restriction might be reconsidered. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I only bring the contributions of another editor into this because it is relevant what I feel to be a punitive block, no community discussion and I was not even advised to take a mentor or anything, just BANG, indef blocked. Which is why I am leaving this project, there are too many admins who have treated me non-impartially and have ignored my concerns when I brought-up MarcusBritish's interaction-violations on my talk page and off-wiki threats on [ [6]]'s talk page to them, when they could not be interpreted as dated (hence no sanctions now because it is conveniently retroactive), and I have had enough of it. TheFortunateSon ( talk) 14:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your block in relation to disputes around nationality. Thank you. -- RA ( talk) 20:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Sheodred ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Requesting review of my block with discussion TheFortunateSon ( talk) 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Uh, if you want your block reviewed it might be a good idea if you explain why you think it should be reviewed, and of course the very recent block evasion pretty much dooms any chance you have at the moment. See WP:GAB and more specifically WP:NOTTHEM and of course WP:EVADE before posting another request. Thanks. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:30, 16 January 2012 (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.
I would appreciate if you showed an even hand towards other disruptive edits as we see here [7] you have taken no action whatsoever against him or the edit-warring admin who wrongly blocked me before here [8]. I am constantly being singled out here and you have ignored these two users and MarcusBritish's repeated topic ban violations and incivility.
I made no edits under that IP that was a violation as there is nothing under WP:Sock that prohibits making an edit-warring report Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections..
I acknowledge that IP was me, but I would not have made that report if you demonstrated that there was uniformity and an even-handed approach, which in my honest opinion was not fulfilled, you were ignorant of Seanwal111111's multiple disruptive edits but not mine, which was a single edit which was backed up with a coherent explanation as people will see from the details of the block. , which I feel is not going to be reviewd anytime soon, so I will give it a month or two before I request again.
And regarding this account WinterIsComingOdran. I was trying to start a clean slate, and despite my positive contributions I was unable to continue my positive contributions and clean state because of the usual opposing editor who has an axe to grind for me, so obviously the only way I can really start afresh is getting my block reviewed. TheFortunateSon ( talk) 17:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyway this is it, I won't be back for a while, hopefuly things will have improved here and in real-life when I apply for an unblock again. TheFortunateSon ( talk) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Liam Neeson". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
00:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am blocked for the moment, so I will not be participating. TheFortunateSon ( talk) 01:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This probably did more to prevent your future unblock than any of your actions before now. This is a volunteer project. There is no time limit. I reviewed it earlier, saw nothing that convinced me that the problem would not recur later, but chose not to decline it. Playing "boo hoo, nobody actioned it, so screw you" is the exact wrong attitude we want on Wikipedia ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I have received your request for a review of your block by email, which expanded a great deal upon the block review you posted on, and later deleted from your userpage. Whilst I am personally unfamiliar with all of the details leading to your block, I have to say that I found your propositions for a return to editing persuasive. I would therefore encourage you to post a new unblock request, including all of what you said to me in the email. Please be patient whilst an administrator takes the time to review the block; he or she will probably need to consult with the admins already involved.
Should your request be declined, your last course of appeal lies with the Ban Appeal Subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee. Before making a request to the BASC, you should follow these instructions. -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 17:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Sheodred ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi I have an outstanding issue about a block I received a whilst ago, I believe it was disproportionate to what I did, I was given an indefinite block for what was perceived to be long term edit-warring which is not true, I always engaged in discussion on the talk pages, brought up proposals on the relevant talk pages, and even made meaningful contriubtions to good articles, I believe that I have been unfairly treated by a certain "cabal" of editors, who seemed more interested in hounding me rather then helping me become a better editor and being civil. I have had time to reflect over the course of my block, and I admit that my edits can be interpreted as disruptive from a certain perspective, I will not engage in any edits to nationalities relating to Irish nationalities without prior discussion first and reliable sources and I am aslo willing to self-impose a 1RR, but I assure you my contributions are not solely on Irish related issues but others also. I did cause some problems for myself at the start of my indef block because I evaded the block but only to start on a clean slate, I edited constructively when I tried to evade and did not engage in disruptive edits, but yes it was still a breach of rules, but my intentions were good. I created articles on Enable Ireland and Ogra Chorcai. I would like to start on a clean slate but can only do so if my block is reviewed, and would ike a mentor, Rannpháirtí anaithnid would be my ideal mentor he has always been understanding and was always impartial in disputes that arose, he also managed to avoid getting dragged into horrible disputes on talk pages and edit-wars on Irish articles with opposing editors, I have a lot to learn from him judging from his approach to articles and users here. NeoSheodred ( talk) 12:54 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
There's too much wrong here for this unblock request to be accepted. First of all, you were using this account to evade your block (again) two days ago. You still do not seem to grasp what edit warring is or why it is not acceptable. And finally, you insist on blaming a "cabal" of editors instead of focusing on your own behavior. TN X Man 19:06, 3 February 2012 (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.
I will just move over to wikiversity indefinitely, as much as there are decent and well-meaning editors here, who uphold neutralality and are happy in helping each other out and wikimentoring unfortunate lost souls like myself, there is simply too much of the opposite type here, I may or may not see you guys in six months, I will do better on that project and do my best to avoid people like MarcusBritish and their companions. Fare thee well. NeoSheodred ( talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Details |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
![]() Sheodred ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: It has been over six months since I have been blocked and in that time I have had a lot of time to reflect and address things of a personal nature, I am a different person from what I was at that time, and I have come to understand the futility of getting too personally involved and drawn into pointless tit-for-tat comments and edit-disputes, most notably ones relating to nationality, no matter how right or wrong one is. I have learnt about such topics there will always one who will be vehemently opposed to your POV even if it is illogical, foolish or wrong and vice versa of course and that the most important aspect of edits is not the edits themselves but the reaction/response gives to opposing editors. I took the advice of my peers who sought to counsel me after the block I received, and I assure them and the admins that I have no more intention of being dragged into such disputes. I hope the period of taken leave of anything to do with wikipedia has proved that. I would like the chance to start afresh on a clean slate. NeoSheodred ( talk) 14:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Accept reason: After review with the blocking admin, and with your acceptance of restrictions, I am unblocking. The following restrictions must continue to appear here on your talkpage for the duration, and will be listed at WP:RESTRICT:
Any violation of the above will lead to a return to an indefinite block ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Details |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Going out on a limb hereClearly, with no action on this unblock in 5 days, it's not going to happen. Personally, I'm a bit perturbed by your attempts to negotiate. I'm also cheesed at your belief that you actually need to be on the list of people formally-warned about the Troubles restrictions to have been bound by it. It makes zero sense for you to return to the articles that got you into trouble. Although there is some sign of personal growth, I'm not 100% convinced. Here are my proposed restrictions based on things said above, and they really aren't negotiable:
( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 16:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
|