| Revision as of 19:03, 11 September 2013 editMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →Voice of sanity and basic human decency: context← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:09, 11 September 2013 edit undoThinkEnemies (talk | contribs)3,775 edits →Voice of sanity and basic human decency: added stuffNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| Great call MastCell -- The person who adhoms my political affiliation by saying I should edit conservapedia and claims ThinkEnemies is ''"incapable of collaboratively editing with people who don't think like "'' without providing diffs is the '''"voice of sanity and basic human decency"''', eh? God help us all. ]<u>]</u> 18:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | Great call MastCell -- The person who adhoms my political affiliation by saying I should edit conservapedia and claims ThinkEnemies is ''"incapable of collaboratively editing with people who don't think like "'' without providing diffs is the '''"voice of sanity and basic human decency"''', eh? God help us all. ]<u>]</u> 18:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| {{unblock|I blew up yesterday and said some things I shouldn't have. I'm better now and understand my actions were inexcusable. It's a teachable moment and a lesson I won't soon forget. An indefinite block is overkill, though, by an admin who has personally attacked me by claiming ThinkEnemies has a ''"long history of tendentious, agenda-driven editing."'' This admin has offered zero evidence to substantiate such a statement. Furthermore, this blocking admin didn't even give their opinion of what they believe my agenda to be, which can only be explained as odd. This small sample shows their decision may not have been one made by a sound mind. ]<u>]</u> 18:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
{{unblock|I blew up yesterday and said some things I shouldn't have. I'm better now and understand my actions were inexcusable. It's a teachable moment and a lesson I won't soon forget. An indefinite block is overkill, though, by an admin who has personally attacked me by claiming ThinkEnemies has a ''"long history of tendentious, agenda-driven editing."'' This admin has offered zero evidence to substantiate such a statement. Furthermore, this blocking admin didn't even give their opinion of what they believe my agenda to be, which can only be explained as odd. This small sample shows their decision may not have been one made by a sound mind. ]<u>]</u> 18:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Add: Blocking admin says: There's just no place here for people who call other editors <redacted>, '''at least not so long as I have administrative permissions.''' | |||
| :This IMO, denotes the blocking admin is championing themselves as a maverick, some sort of warrior for ''what should be, not what is'' and would happily risk losing their administrative privileges to do what they believe to be righteous, regardless of what actions our policy norms would suggest. ]<u>]</u> 19:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| :If the decision to unblock you turns on your history of tendentious editing, then I will present evidence to that effect. I think your use of homophobic slurs directed against other editors is sufficient by itself to merit an indefinite block. Your editing history and multiple previous blocks come into play as context; this particular incident is part of a chain of violations of site norms, rather than a single isolated outburst in a background of productive editing. As a note to reviewing admins, there is an ongoing discussion of this block at ] at present. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | :If the decision to unblock you turns on your history of tendentious editing, then I will present evidence to that effect. I think your use of homophobic slurs directed against other editors is sufficient by itself to merit an indefinite block. Your editing history and multiple previous blocks come into play as context; this particular incident is part of a chain of violations of site norms, rather than a single isolated outburst in a background of productive editing. As a note to reviewing admins, there is an ongoing discussion of this block at ] at present. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:09, 11 September 2013
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
.gif)
Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:ThinkEnemies - personal attacks & NOTHERE. Thank you. ItsZippy 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Being that I'm still blocked, there's not much I can do to contribute. Glancing at that thread appears to show a personal attack against me (unsubstantiated sock puppetry claims), but I'm not offended as some blowback should be expected after my embarrassing outburst. All I can offer is heartfelt apologies. Oh, and I have no desire to edit conservapedia, which I always thought was a liberal troll site. Maybe it's just a troll site, period. Not really my cup of tea, either way. †TE†Talk 17:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Block extended to indefinite
I've extended your block to indefinite, as a result of your use of homophobic slurs against another editor on top of a long history of tendentious, agenda-driven editing and edit-warring. You may appeal the block by the usual means, including the {{unblock}} template, the unblock ticket request system, or by emailing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. MastCell 18:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- @MastCell: I understand overreactions, I specialize in them -- But please don't fling feces at me by saying ThinkEnemies has a "long history of tendentious, agenda-driven editing." That statement is patently false. I shouldn't have attacked the person of Zippy. I shoudn't have edit-warred on the clear misrepresentation of a decade-old cited source and violation of LEDE. That is a fact. I have no problem accepting my punishment for these acts, but please don't make stuff up. It's cheap and rather petty of you. †TE†Talk 18:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Voice of sanity and basic human decency
MastCell - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&diff=572516574&oldid=572516054
Great call MastCell -- The person who adhoms my political affiliation by saying I should edit conservapedia and claims ThinkEnemies is "incapable of collaboratively editing with people who don't think like " without providing diffs is the "voice of sanity and basic human decency", eh? God help us all. †TE†Talk 18:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
ThinkEnemies (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I blew up yesterday and said some things I shouldn't have. I'm better now and understand my actions were inexcusable. It's a teachable moment and a lesson I won't soon forget. An indefinite block is overkill, though, by an admin who has personally attacked me by claiming ThinkEnemies has a "long history of tendentious, agenda-driven editing." This admin has offered zero evidence to substantiate such a statement. Furthermore, this blocking admin didn't even give their opinion of what they believe my agenda to be, which can only be explained as odd. This small sample shows their decision may not have been one made by a sound mind. †TE†Talk 18:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)- Add: Blocking admin says: There's just no place here for people who call other editors <redacted>, at least not so long as I have administrative permissions.
- This IMO, denotes the blocking admin is championing themselves as a maverick, some sort of warrior for what should be, not what is and would happily risk losing their administrative privileges to do what they believe to be righteous, regardless of what actions our policy norms would suggest. †TE†Talk 19:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I blew up yesterday and said some things I shouldn't have. I'm better now and understand my actions were inexcusable. It's a teachable moment and a lesson I won't soon forget. An indefinite block is overkill, though, by an admin who has personally attacked me by claiming ThinkEnemies has a ''"long history of tendentious, agenda-driven editing."'' This admin has offered zero evidence to substantiate such a statement. Furthermore, this blocking admin didn't even give their opinion of what they believe my agenda to be, which can only be explained as odd. This small sample shows their decision may not have been one made by a sound mind. ]<u>]</u> 18:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC) :Add: Blocking admin says: There's just no place here for people who call other editors <redacted>, '''at least not so long as I have administrative permissions.''' :This IMO, denotes the blocking admin is championing themselves as a maverick, some sort of warrior for ''what should be, not what is'' and would happily risk losing their administrative privileges to do what they believe to be righteous, regardless of what actions our policy norms would suggest. ]<u>]</u> 19:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I blew up yesterday and said some things I shouldn't have. I'm better now and understand my actions were inexcusable. It's a teachable moment and a lesson I won't soon forget. An indefinite block is overkill, though, by an admin who has personally attacked me by claiming ThinkEnemies has a ''"long history of tendentious, agenda-driven editing."'' This admin has offered zero evidence to substantiate such a statement. Furthermore, this blocking admin didn't even give their opinion of what they believe my agenda to be, which can only be explained as odd. This small sample shows their decision may not have been one made by a sound mind. ]<u>]</u> 18:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC) :Add: Blocking admin says: There's just no place here for people who call other editors <redacted>, '''at least not so long as I have administrative permissions.''' :This IMO, denotes the blocking admin is championing themselves as a maverick, some sort of warrior for ''what should be, not what is'' and would happily risk losing their administrative privileges to do what they believe to be righteous, regardless of what actions our policy norms would suggest. ]<u>]</u> 19:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I blew up yesterday and said some things I shouldn't have. I'm better now and understand my actions were inexcusable. It's a teachable moment and a lesson I won't soon forget. An indefinite block is overkill, though, by an admin who has personally attacked me by claiming ThinkEnemies has a ''"long history of tendentious, agenda-driven editing."'' This admin has offered zero evidence to substantiate such a statement. Furthermore, this blocking admin didn't even give their opinion of what they believe my agenda to be, which can only be explained as odd. This small sample shows their decision may not have been one made by a sound mind. ]<u>]</u> 18:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC) :Add: Blocking admin says: There's just no place here for people who call other editors <redacted>, '''at least not so long as I have administrative permissions.''' :This IMO, denotes the blocking admin is championing themselves as a maverick, some sort of warrior for ''what should be, not what is'' and would happily risk losing their administrative privileges to do what they believe to be righteous, regardless of what actions our policy norms would suggest. ]<u>]</u> 19:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- If the decision to unblock you turns on your history of tendentious editing, then I will present evidence to that effect. I think your use of homophobic slurs directed against other editors is sufficient by itself to merit an indefinite block. Your editing history and multiple previous blocks come into play as context; this particular incident is part of a chain of violations of site norms, rather than a single isolated outburst in a background of productive editing. As a note to reviewing admins, there is an ongoing discussion of this block at WP:AN/I at present. MastCell 19:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)