Misplaced Pages

User talk:Axmann8: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:15, 14 March 2009 editAxmann8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,292 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 11:19, 14 March 2009 edit undoAxmann8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,292 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 12: Line 12:




{{unblock reviewed|1=Accusations revoked on grounds that no evidence exists to uphold them. <font face="Old English Text MT" size="3px" bgcolor="black"><span style="background-color: black;">] ]</span></font> 11:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)|decline=Your edits to the talk page violate ] and ]. Making wild conspiratorial accusations, and labeling living people using names like "domestic terrorist" without any cause or justification is clearly a violation of ]. Polite discussion is encouraged at talk pages, even on the issue of Obama's citizenship, but the sort of polemic you left at the Barak Obama is clearly disruptive. It does not appear you are interested in building consensus via evidence or anything else, but you merely want to demand that your version of The Truth be accepted regardless of what mainstream publications and neutral sources say on the matter.}} {{unblock reviewed|1=Accusations revoked on grounds that no evidence exists to uphold them. Also, I agree to stay away from the Obama article, as the only addition I wish to add (about the eligibility concern) is obviously not going to be accepted, I really have no place there anyway. <font face="Old English Text MT" size="3px" bgcolor="black"><span style="background-color: black;">] ]</span></font> 11:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)|decline=Your edits to the talk page violate ] and ]. Making wild conspiratorial accusations, and labeling living people using names like "domestic terrorist" without any cause or justification is clearly a violation of ]. Polite discussion is encouraged at talk pages, even on the issue of Obama's citizenship, but the sort of polemic you left at the Barak Obama is clearly disruptive. It does not appear you are interested in building consensus via evidence or anything else, but you merely want to demand that your version of The Truth be accepted regardless of what mainstream publications and neutral sources say on the matter.}}


== Unblock offer == == Unblock offer ==

Revision as of 11:19, 14 March 2009

The date is: January 7, 2025

Please put your signature on additions to this page.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Axmann8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your edits were blatantly POV and tendentious. You were launching accusations around; that's not a discussion, that's soapboxing. As such, I'm declining this request, and urge you to be more neutral and wary when you edit controversial articles, after the block expires. Failure to do so will inevitably result in a longer block. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Axmann8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to appeal this block directly to the arbitration committee. I have tried

other methods of contesting this block (see below), but I am still dissatisfied with

the administrator conduct in this case. I am requesting respectful administrator

assistance to help me file this request, as I am unable to start an arbitration

request on my own.

Also, per WP:FAITH, WP:IAR, and WP:BOLD.

Decline reason:

Requests where a user is appealing a block or a ban to the Arbitration Committee must be done via email, as the user in question naturally is in no position to engage the arbitration process. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee#Mailing_lists for more details on contacting the Committee. Daniel (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Note: I removed a large amount of unnecessary and nonsensical formatting from this request.

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.


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Axmann8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Accusations revoked on grounds that no evidence exists to uphold them. Also, I agree to stay away from the Obama article, as the only addition I wish to add (about the eligibility concern) is obviously not going to be accepted, I really have no place there anyway. -Axmann8 (Talk) 11:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your edits to the talk page violate WP:BLP and WP:SOAPBOX. Making wild conspiratorial accusations, and labeling living people using names like "domestic terrorist" without any cause or justification is clearly a violation of WP:BLP. Polite discussion is encouraged at talk pages, even on the issue of Obama's citizenship, but the sort of polemic you left at the Barak Obama is clearly disruptive. It does not appear you are interested in building consensus via evidence or anything else, but you merely want to demand that your version of The Truth be accepted regardless of what mainstream publications and neutral sources say on the matter.

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 offer

The highly charged political articles of the day require a certain mindset and an ability to bring light rather than heat to the discussion. These articles require higher standards of editors, and administrators are tasked to enforce civility and decorum on the discussion as well as resolving problematic article edits. There is no right to free speech on wikipedia: If Misplaced Pages administration is not to your liking, you are free to copy all the contents and set up an alternative site - this is your one and only right guaranteed by free culture projects such as this. Despite that, I am, however, willing to unblock you, provided you give me your word to stay away from Barack Obama related topics for the original duration of your block and withdraw your accusations against Fut.Perf. above. henrik•talk 10:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I accept this request. As soon as I am unblocked, I will withdraw my accusation against Fut.Perf. on the grounds that there is no substantive evidence or reason to uphold the accusation. -Axmann8 (Talk) 11:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)