This is Ukufwakfgr's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
This is a talk page.
Posting the same complaint to multiple noticeboards marks you out in a way that I doubt you intended. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
They are not the same complaint. Ukufwakfgr ( talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It would be seriously useful if you could keep it civil please. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, editing the date or time on a post (as you did here is frowned on at Wikipedia. It is often seen as an indication that an editor is being dishonest.
I know this was NOT your intent... in fact I am certain that you changed the time in an attempt to be very honest (ie to indicate that you had ammended your comment, and show when you did so). So... this is not a complaint... I am just offering some advice so you don't get accused of dishonesty by anyone else.
Most Wikipedians don't even bother changing the date or time when they ammend a comment, they just make their changes without bothering to change the sig. But, if you feel the need to indicate the time that you have changed a comment, the best way to do so is by using the str strike-through button (in in the menu bar above the edit box)... cross out the old time and add the new one next to it (it would look like this: 10:2010:25). If there have been no interviening comments (ie your comment is still the newest one), another other option is to simply re-sign the comment, delete the entire signature line and re-sign with four new tildies (~~~~).
By the way... thank you for starting over. I think we are actually making slow but steady progress towards compromise and consensus (at least I hope so). Blueboar ( talk) 15:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on
User talk:Theresa knott: Please see Wikipedia's
no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to
blocks for disruption. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.
Gordonofcartoon (
talk)
01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The particular edit [1] is a personal attack on a group of editors ("In addition, it appears that practically all of the active editors of "Masonic conspiracy theories" are Freemason admins, which is like putting a gang of criminals to build a prison"). Treat this as a first formal warning. You're not a new editor, and should know better, so you don't get a level 1 warning. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, which you did here:
Talk:Masonic_conspiracy_theories. If you continue, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Kingturtle (
talk)
00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Uku... some advice... when an admin comes by and warns you that you have done something wrong... it is not a good idea to argue about it... even if you think the warning is unjustified. It is an especially a bad idea to make additional personal attacks in an attempt to justify your edits. Just acknowlege the warning and move on. Blueboar ( talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ukufwakfgr ( talk · contribs), you have a new account, just created on January 29, but obvious experience with wiki procedures, which implies sockpuppetry. In fact, your account appears to have been created for no other purpose than to cause disruption at a powderkeg article, Masonic conspiracy theories. On January 30, you implemented a major controversial rewrite of the article. [2] When your changes were reverted, you proceeded to edit war. On the talkpage, things weren't much better, as you tended to react with incivility and ad hominem attacks at other editors. Warnings from other editors to your talkpage do not appear to be helping, as you simply respond with more attacks, and vague references to logical fallacies. Your edits appear to paint a picture of someone who is operating in bad faith, and is just here to argue. You may or may not be enjoying this, but it's wasting the time of other editors who have better ways to spend their time.
I have blocked your account access for 31 hours, which is actually quite lenient considering your recent behavior. When you return, if you wish to actually work in a civil and collegial manner with other editors, you are welcome to do so. However, if you resume disruptive comments and edits, the block may be rapidly reinstated. Please, if there's any part of you that genuinely wishes to help with the building of the encyclopedia, simply treat other editors with civility and respect, and keep comments focused strictly on the building of the articles, and not on other editors. You may also wish to spend some time working on other less controversial parts of the project. For example, Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references is currently needing some help, just to add {{ reflist}} tags on articles that are missing them. If you do have any questions, let me know, -- El on ka 18:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ukufwakfgr ( talk) 13:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Based on false presumptions, lack of care, and favoritism likely due to off-wiki alliances or fears of off-wiki retribution
Decline reason:
Please read the guide to appealing blocks before making another appeal. Unblock requests based solely or largely on allegations of off-wiki conspiracies will usually fall on deaf ears. The expectation in the unblock process is that you show an uninvolved administrator how you did not deserve a block or how your conduct has changed such that a block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Protonk ( talk) 15:36, 9 February 2009 (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.
Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It is false that my block request was "based solely or largely on allegations of off-wiki conspiracies." I also said, "Based on false presumptions, lack of care."
Decline reason:
Neither of those are falsifiable propositions. Nor are they related to on wiki activities. Rather, the blocking administrators state of mind is decidedly off-wiki. Please make an unblock request which describes why you should be unblocked, as noted in the seciton below. Protonk ( talk) 15:50, 9 February 2009 (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.
Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have provided copious arguments for why the block is invalid in my talk page and in the talk page of the article in question. I request that someone with any interest in my case read them. In summary, the admins' reactions demonstrate lack of understanding about Wikipedia policy, as well as the situation itself. The phrases "false presumptions" and "lack of care" are not conjecture about state of mind, rather brief observations of actions and statements which have reflected the decision-making process. I would just like a valid rationale, and maybe more accurate wording on the policy pages.
Decline reason:
Block was a good one save only for the fact it was too lenient. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:47, 9 February 2009 (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.
Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Nobody can come up with a valid rationale, therefore the block is invalid by default.
Decline reason:
Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Page protected. Sandstein 22:20, 9 February 2009 (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.
That's bad logic. DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) 19:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You might want to reconsider your appeal. This phrase in Wikipedia's appeal policy stands out: "# Assume good faith. It is theoretically possible that the other users who may have reported you, and the administrator who blocked you, are part of a conspiracy against someone half a world away they've never met in person. But they probably aren't, and an unblock request that presumes they are will probably not be accepted by anyone." We are suspending our discussions out of courtesy and will wait patiently until your return. ( Taivo ( talk) 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
Hello, After reading your accusations on WP:ANI and reviewing your edits, I am going to join the numerous people who have tried to give you advice to comply with WP:Civil, WP:NPA and seek WP:Consensus. You clearly need to do some careful examination of your own behavior that led to your block.
You should be aware that you may be blocked without further warning for further instances of disruptive behavior and any additional blocks are likely to be of significantly longer duration or indefinite. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Toddst1 (
talk)
14:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The editors working on Masonic conspiracy theories clearly do not intend to present the subject matter in an unbiased manner, and are becoming disruptive, provocative and counterproductive in discussion. User talk:SarekOfVulcan made undiscussed edits to an article which I am actively contributing. I see these as acts of hounding, sabotage and general harassment. I, indeed, have made and am still making "useful contributions" related to as well as apart from the users and articles in question. As a matter of fact I was working on a brand new article, which obviously will be delayed.
Decline reason:
That others may have behaved poorly (and I am not saying that they did, I am merely noting that someone, somewhere, in the history of Wikipedia, may have behaved badly besides you) does not excuse your poor behavior. You have a long history of incivility and personal attacks against other editors, and I see nothing in this unblock request that convinces me that you intend to alter your behavior in any way. As such, I see no reason to unblock you at this time. Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:30, 12 February 2009 (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.
Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I certainly will change my behavior as I have done already, on the condition that the other editors are warned about their actions, and that the discussion in the Masonic conspiracy theories talk page reflects so.
Decline reason:
Issuing an ultimatum will not earn you an unblock. — Travis talk 17:02, 12 February 2009 (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.
That was not an ultimatum. Maybe admins should try not to support one side in a dispute, or try to assume for once that I'm not some kind of deviant because I have a valid minority opinion. Citing the same sources over and over is a clear indication of bad faith.
Please visit this subpage for details about my perspective of the block.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ukufwakfgr (
talk •
contribs) 19:26, 12 February 2009
Ukufwakfgr, as an admin who is an outsider to this dispute, the admins here are responding correctly to your behavior. You were given plenty of chances and warnings. I see no reason to go against their decisions. Please take your lumps, and then be kinder and gentler when you're block has expired.
Kingturtle (
talk)
20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but it seems like action has been taken against me for invalid reasons. The other party has not been dealt with, and blocking me will not resolve anything. They will continue to harass and stalk me, and make false accusations after the block is over. Ukufwakfgr ( talk) 21:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
My talk page history shows that a talkback was placed on my page on 13:26 for a comment that was posted on 13:25. This shows that SarekOfVulcan ( talk · contribs · logs) manually placed the talkback in my talk page in order to call attention. He certainly doesn't want to make friends with me, so who is supposed to see it?
My block log shows that the block was enacted at 14:08, whereas the complaint was posted to WP:WQA at 14:46. Why would someone respond to a request from the future ??
Collapsed for readability
|
---|
This may have been forum shopping, in response to a seemingly ignored plea. This is also about SarekOfVulcan's statements, which show bad faith overall. Blocking me first and then posting the complaint would amount to censorship, since I would only be able to refute the claims in my talk page, and through unblock requests. This risks my being blocked from my own talk page. From oldid=270227244: "lots of civility violations"
"I'd honestly like him to settle down and become a productive member of Wikipedia"
"if we can't defend our arguments against determined opposition, are they really any good?"
"I see him getting indef-blocked within the month. Can somebody ... point him in the right direction? Make sure you read all of the discussion, so he can't accuse you of only reading the scandalous parts"
"has called other editors liars"
"appealed a block on the grounds that, essentially, the Masons made Elonka block him."
"Last night, I noticed that he had added a bunch of references to Daigo Umehara that included exlinks in the authorlink field, so I cleaned them up, removing only the authorlinks. "
In oldid=270230275 he added
which was a discussion irrelevant to the current situation. In diff oldid=270232119 he saw it fit to completely delete the request, stating, "blocked for two weeks: no action needed"
This is evidence tampering. Deleting it would be sensible, if one argues that his post is not even evidence. In addition, he has described my posting to WP:ANI as "amusing" in Blueboar's talk page and MSJapan's talk page. It is part of the Freemasonry Wikiproject, and all of the editors are Freemasons. They have created a cabal to stop me from making what I believe to be neutral edits. Initially they have countered that the article as it stood was even more neutral, but have since rescinded from that position, and have taken to changing the article suddenly, after 5 months without a single edit. So much for a consensus, and so much for the article being neutral. Many of my talking points remain undisputed, and have caused the other users to resort to provocation and off-topic discussion. Practically no admin has taken that into consideration, which is deeply disturbing. The "majority," at one point, insisted on "debunking" the subject matter, which directly contradicts this opinion, showing that the editors' point did not reflect "common sense." The editors later changed their position, arguing that, indeed, such edits would violate NPOV. |
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Toddst1 (
talk)
05:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
1. There was no "disruptive behavior" 2. There were no unfounded accusations. Diffs are provided, and my talk page contains lots of information concerning the relevant issue 3. I have never demonstrated an inclination to pre-emptively attack or "harass" other editors 4. I have engaged in lots of legitimate editing and civil discussion on Wikipedia, and would like to continue to do so
Decline reason:
In the short time that this account has been active, you have engaged in personal attacks, have harassed other editors, and have edited disruptively. You also show an impressive block log for such a short duration. Your actions have continued post-block, and I am not encouraged by your recent comments that do not acknowledge your prior mistakes. You need to convince administrators that you are willing to modify your methods of discussion and your methods of editing, however, I see little of that in prior block explanations. I am endorsing this well-justified block. seicer | talk | contribs 15:18, 27 February 2009 (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.
Uku, if I unblock you, can you stay away from Freemasonry articles and the editors who you've been accusing of bad faith?-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Daigo Umehara. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigo Umehara (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This is Ukufwakfgr's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
This is a talk page.
Posting the same complaint to multiple noticeboards marks you out in a way that I doubt you intended. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
They are not the same complaint. Ukufwakfgr ( talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It would be seriously useful if you could keep it civil please. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, editing the date or time on a post (as you did here is frowned on at Wikipedia. It is often seen as an indication that an editor is being dishonest.
I know this was NOT your intent... in fact I am certain that you changed the time in an attempt to be very honest (ie to indicate that you had ammended your comment, and show when you did so). So... this is not a complaint... I am just offering some advice so you don't get accused of dishonesty by anyone else.
Most Wikipedians don't even bother changing the date or time when they ammend a comment, they just make their changes without bothering to change the sig. But, if you feel the need to indicate the time that you have changed a comment, the best way to do so is by using the str strike-through button (in in the menu bar above the edit box)... cross out the old time and add the new one next to it (it would look like this: 10:2010:25). If there have been no interviening comments (ie your comment is still the newest one), another other option is to simply re-sign the comment, delete the entire signature line and re-sign with four new tildies (~~~~).
By the way... thank you for starting over. I think we are actually making slow but steady progress towards compromise and consensus (at least I hope so). Blueboar ( talk) 15:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on
User talk:Theresa knott: Please see Wikipedia's
no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to
blocks for disruption. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.
Gordonofcartoon (
talk)
01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The particular edit [1] is a personal attack on a group of editors ("In addition, it appears that practically all of the active editors of "Masonic conspiracy theories" are Freemason admins, which is like putting a gang of criminals to build a prison"). Treat this as a first formal warning. You're not a new editor, and should know better, so you don't get a level 1 warning. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, which you did here:
Talk:Masonic_conspiracy_theories. If you continue, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Kingturtle (
talk)
00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Uku... some advice... when an admin comes by and warns you that you have done something wrong... it is not a good idea to argue about it... even if you think the warning is unjustified. It is an especially a bad idea to make additional personal attacks in an attempt to justify your edits. Just acknowlege the warning and move on. Blueboar ( talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ukufwakfgr ( talk · contribs), you have a new account, just created on January 29, but obvious experience with wiki procedures, which implies sockpuppetry. In fact, your account appears to have been created for no other purpose than to cause disruption at a powderkeg article, Masonic conspiracy theories. On January 30, you implemented a major controversial rewrite of the article. [2] When your changes were reverted, you proceeded to edit war. On the talkpage, things weren't much better, as you tended to react with incivility and ad hominem attacks at other editors. Warnings from other editors to your talkpage do not appear to be helping, as you simply respond with more attacks, and vague references to logical fallacies. Your edits appear to paint a picture of someone who is operating in bad faith, and is just here to argue. You may or may not be enjoying this, but it's wasting the time of other editors who have better ways to spend their time.
I have blocked your account access for 31 hours, which is actually quite lenient considering your recent behavior. When you return, if you wish to actually work in a civil and collegial manner with other editors, you are welcome to do so. However, if you resume disruptive comments and edits, the block may be rapidly reinstated. Please, if there's any part of you that genuinely wishes to help with the building of the encyclopedia, simply treat other editors with civility and respect, and keep comments focused strictly on the building of the articles, and not on other editors. You may also wish to spend some time working on other less controversial parts of the project. For example, Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references is currently needing some help, just to add {{ reflist}} tags on articles that are missing them. If you do have any questions, let me know, -- El on ka 18:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ukufwakfgr ( talk) 13:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Based on false presumptions, lack of care, and favoritism likely due to off-wiki alliances or fears of off-wiki retribution
Decline reason:
Please read the guide to appealing blocks before making another appeal. Unblock requests based solely or largely on allegations of off-wiki conspiracies will usually fall on deaf ears. The expectation in the unblock process is that you show an uninvolved administrator how you did not deserve a block or how your conduct has changed such that a block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Protonk ( talk) 15:36, 9 February 2009 (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.
Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It is false that my block request was "based solely or largely on allegations of off-wiki conspiracies." I also said, "Based on false presumptions, lack of care."
Decline reason:
Neither of those are falsifiable propositions. Nor are they related to on wiki activities. Rather, the blocking administrators state of mind is decidedly off-wiki. Please make an unblock request which describes why you should be unblocked, as noted in the seciton below. Protonk ( talk) 15:50, 9 February 2009 (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.
Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have provided copious arguments for why the block is invalid in my talk page and in the talk page of the article in question. I request that someone with any interest in my case read them. In summary, the admins' reactions demonstrate lack of understanding about Wikipedia policy, as well as the situation itself. The phrases "false presumptions" and "lack of care" are not conjecture about state of mind, rather brief observations of actions and statements which have reflected the decision-making process. I would just like a valid rationale, and maybe more accurate wording on the policy pages.
Decline reason:
Block was a good one save only for the fact it was too lenient. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:47, 9 February 2009 (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.
Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Nobody can come up with a valid rationale, therefore the block is invalid by default.
Decline reason:
Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Page protected. Sandstein 22:20, 9 February 2009 (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.
That's bad logic. DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) 19:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You might want to reconsider your appeal. This phrase in Wikipedia's appeal policy stands out: "# Assume good faith. It is theoretically possible that the other users who may have reported you, and the administrator who blocked you, are part of a conspiracy against someone half a world away they've never met in person. But they probably aren't, and an unblock request that presumes they are will probably not be accepted by anyone." We are suspending our discussions out of courtesy and will wait patiently until your return. ( Taivo ( talk) 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
Hello, After reading your accusations on WP:ANI and reviewing your edits, I am going to join the numerous people who have tried to give you advice to comply with WP:Civil, WP:NPA and seek WP:Consensus. You clearly need to do some careful examination of your own behavior that led to your block.
You should be aware that you may be blocked without further warning for further instances of disruptive behavior and any additional blocks are likely to be of significantly longer duration or indefinite. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Toddst1 (
talk)
14:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The editors working on Masonic conspiracy theories clearly do not intend to present the subject matter in an unbiased manner, and are becoming disruptive, provocative and counterproductive in discussion. User talk:SarekOfVulcan made undiscussed edits to an article which I am actively contributing. I see these as acts of hounding, sabotage and general harassment. I, indeed, have made and am still making "useful contributions" related to as well as apart from the users and articles in question. As a matter of fact I was working on a brand new article, which obviously will be delayed.
Decline reason:
That others may have behaved poorly (and I am not saying that they did, I am merely noting that someone, somewhere, in the history of Wikipedia, may have behaved badly besides you) does not excuse your poor behavior. You have a long history of incivility and personal attacks against other editors, and I see nothing in this unblock request that convinces me that you intend to alter your behavior in any way. As such, I see no reason to unblock you at this time. Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:30, 12 February 2009 (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.
Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I certainly will change my behavior as I have done already, on the condition that the other editors are warned about their actions, and that the discussion in the Masonic conspiracy theories talk page reflects so.
Decline reason:
Issuing an ultimatum will not earn you an unblock. — Travis talk 17:02, 12 February 2009 (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.
That was not an ultimatum. Maybe admins should try not to support one side in a dispute, or try to assume for once that I'm not some kind of deviant because I have a valid minority opinion. Citing the same sources over and over is a clear indication of bad faith.
Please visit this subpage for details about my perspective of the block.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ukufwakfgr (
talk •
contribs) 19:26, 12 February 2009
Ukufwakfgr, as an admin who is an outsider to this dispute, the admins here are responding correctly to your behavior. You were given plenty of chances and warnings. I see no reason to go against their decisions. Please take your lumps, and then be kinder and gentler when you're block has expired.
Kingturtle (
talk)
20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but it seems like action has been taken against me for invalid reasons. The other party has not been dealt with, and blocking me will not resolve anything. They will continue to harass and stalk me, and make false accusations after the block is over. Ukufwakfgr ( talk) 21:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
My talk page history shows that a talkback was placed on my page on 13:26 for a comment that was posted on 13:25. This shows that SarekOfVulcan ( talk · contribs · logs) manually placed the talkback in my talk page in order to call attention. He certainly doesn't want to make friends with me, so who is supposed to see it?
My block log shows that the block was enacted at 14:08, whereas the complaint was posted to WP:WQA at 14:46. Why would someone respond to a request from the future ??
Collapsed for readability
|
---|
This may have been forum shopping, in response to a seemingly ignored plea. This is also about SarekOfVulcan's statements, which show bad faith overall. Blocking me first and then posting the complaint would amount to censorship, since I would only be able to refute the claims in my talk page, and through unblock requests. This risks my being blocked from my own talk page. From oldid=270227244: "lots of civility violations"
"I'd honestly like him to settle down and become a productive member of Wikipedia"
"if we can't defend our arguments against determined opposition, are they really any good?"
"I see him getting indef-blocked within the month. Can somebody ... point him in the right direction? Make sure you read all of the discussion, so he can't accuse you of only reading the scandalous parts"
"has called other editors liars"
"appealed a block on the grounds that, essentially, the Masons made Elonka block him."
"Last night, I noticed that he had added a bunch of references to Daigo Umehara that included exlinks in the authorlink field, so I cleaned them up, removing only the authorlinks. "
In oldid=270230275 he added
which was a discussion irrelevant to the current situation. In diff oldid=270232119 he saw it fit to completely delete the request, stating, "blocked for two weeks: no action needed"
This is evidence tampering. Deleting it would be sensible, if one argues that his post is not even evidence. In addition, he has described my posting to WP:ANI as "amusing" in Blueboar's talk page and MSJapan's talk page. It is part of the Freemasonry Wikiproject, and all of the editors are Freemasons. They have created a cabal to stop me from making what I believe to be neutral edits. Initially they have countered that the article as it stood was even more neutral, but have since rescinded from that position, and have taken to changing the article suddenly, after 5 months without a single edit. So much for a consensus, and so much for the article being neutral. Many of my talking points remain undisputed, and have caused the other users to resort to provocation and off-topic discussion. Practically no admin has taken that into consideration, which is deeply disturbing. The "majority," at one point, insisted on "debunking" the subject matter, which directly contradicts this opinion, showing that the editors' point did not reflect "common sense." The editors later changed their position, arguing that, indeed, such edits would violate NPOV. |
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Toddst1 (
talk)
05:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Ukufwakfgr ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
1. There was no "disruptive behavior" 2. There were no unfounded accusations. Diffs are provided, and my talk page contains lots of information concerning the relevant issue 3. I have never demonstrated an inclination to pre-emptively attack or "harass" other editors 4. I have engaged in lots of legitimate editing and civil discussion on Wikipedia, and would like to continue to do so
Decline reason:
In the short time that this account has been active, you have engaged in personal attacks, have harassed other editors, and have edited disruptively. You also show an impressive block log for such a short duration. Your actions have continued post-block, and I am not encouraged by your recent comments that do not acknowledge your prior mistakes. You need to convince administrators that you are willing to modify your methods of discussion and your methods of editing, however, I see little of that in prior block explanations. I am endorsing this well-justified block. seicer | talk | contribs 15:18, 27 February 2009 (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.
Uku, if I unblock you, can you stay away from Freemasonry articles and the editors who you've been accusing of bad faith?-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Daigo Umehara. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigo Umehara (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)