User talk:Spotfixer

Hey, Stevo.

Looks like I've got your number. Who, pray tell, am I harassing? Spotfixer (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for again returning to attack the editor and not address just content - as you did here and here today alone - you should note that blocks for similar offenses escalate and will continue to do so. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VS ^talk 06:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? You blocked me "preventatively" for a civil comment that ended with "This conversation is over". At worst, I was guilty of straying off topic, and I recognized it, so I ended the conversation; I even apologized to Mike for straying after he pointedly placed a "not a forum" template. After I did, the entire block was locked down by another admin, ending the off-topic discussion. Note that User:Kevin detected no incivility, even though he's warned me for incivility before. Why? Because nothing I said was anything but civil. There was no problem here, no fire to put out. It was all handled, until you dragged it up as an excuse.

As for the second link, speaking the truth is not automatically uncivil, even when the truth is unpleasant. No rules broken; just an excuse for you to block me.

Somehow, I suspect that neither of these are relevant to why you blocked me. It seems more likely that I was blocked shortly after this observation about your penchant for excessive and apparently biased blocks. In short, you got angry at me first, then hunted through my contributions for an excuse to block me. The hint here is that, unlike a case of genuine incivility, where a reasonable admin would explain what the problem is and request a retraction, you jumped in for the kill.

Guess I was right about you: you do target your political opponents and try to run them off Wikipedia. I'm going to put up an unblock request, and I will continue to do so until someone locks down my page. It really doesn't matter if I get unblocked -- I have a life outside Wikipedia. What matters is that I've made my point about your actions. Thank you for proving that point for me! Spotfixer (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, your empty warning not only failed to add verisimilitude to your block, but was abusive. Carver said some silly stuff, but in no way was it vandalism. But, hey, falsely accusing him of vandalism is easy after you've falsely accused me of incivility. Spotfixer (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Note than any perceived lack of action on my part is certainly not because I detected no incivility, I was just busy. Kevin (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No incivility to block for. Moreover, there is an alternate explanation for the block: he took personal offense.

Decline reason:

The diffs provided in the blocking notice, as well as some others in your recent contribution history, are inappropriately aggressive, use ad hominem arguments and draw disparaging conclusions as to the character of debating opponents from their debating position. Since any one of these three factors would be grounds for a short block, I am of the opinion that this current block is valid and am declining the unblock request. CIreland (talk) 10:55, 16 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.

ANI

I formally request that record of this incident be placed at WP:ANI so that other admins can see what Stevo did. Spotfixer (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FfD to delete Time cover image

As you were briefly involved in some of the recent discussion and debate about the images in the article on Intelligent design, I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki . It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg . If you are at all interested in the outcome, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I would like to do so, but I'm dealing with an abusive block from a partisan admin now, so I can't. I'm sorry. Spotfixer (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Sorry to hear that. Maybe it'll help to try to have a bit more patience in the future. WP:3RR tends to be taken fairly seriously. WP:BRD is generally a preferred practice. Good luck. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Further information regarding your block

Spotfixer - what you think of me presents no concern whatsoever. I wonder how you can justify your response to CarverM [that his use of the words], "long term psychological effects of abortion" is [his] little way of attempting to guilt women into having unwanted children, and then on his talk page that he skulks in the shadows is an appropriate way to address your colleagues at this project - particularly when you have been patiently been told, and have been blocked for similar behaviour? Please note also that if you continue as you did last time to abuse the unblock process I will prevent you from editing your own talk page. Please now sit back and await another administrator's review of my block. Thank you.--VS ^talk 06:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, I am not going to lend your abusive actions any credibility by pretending that the block didn't come right after my remark about you. Spotfixer (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As you like Spotfixer. Thank you.--VS ^talk 06:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Show me I'm wrong. Put this up on WP:ANI instead of skulking in the shadows and stabbing me in the back. Take this into the light of a public forum. I dare you. Spotfixer (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is a public forum as soon as you put up your unblock request. However as per the previous times you have been blocked by myself and others you have chosen to soapbox this situation. As detailed I have locked down your page due to abuse of the unblock process. When you are unblocked or the block expires you have an absolute right to take this matter to ANI yourself. Until then please consider my question at the start of this thread, and ask yourself did VirtualSteve force me to make these comments towards my fellow editor. If not then you are responsible for your own actions. Oh and I will also add that until you pointed out the diff above which related to your view on my block of you and Mike I hadn't even seen your comment - but I will add that if you care to check the logs of my blocking editors you will see that I have blocked editors from both the right and the left - especially in relation to the Rick Warren and Saddleback Church articles. --VS ^talk 06:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Review

I have posted on wp:ani requesting a review of Spotfixer's block. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Spots, your block was reviewed on ANI and supported by other editors. I suggest you focus on content rather than other editors. Whatever people's motives are, it doesn't really matter and it's never acceptable to speculate on or comment about what the motives of other editors may be. If the frustration is too great on controversial articles, then work on something else. And there's really no need to challenge Admins. They'll be more than happy to block you. There are lots of articles and lots of editors on here. So I hope you find places where you can enjoy contributing and collaborating. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the newly revealed COI of two of the editors whose activities were primarily the source of Spotfixer's conflicts and actions, i would point out that it looks like Spotfixer deserves not only a great deal of vindication for the content (if not the specific tone) of their actions, but i think Spotfixer also deserves an apology from the editors who drove the situation over the brink of Civility. Respectfully, Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 20:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COIN#Rick_Warren_and_Saddleback_Church_and_Saddlebacking

He's not going to get it, believe me, and even if he does, it won't be sincere. I'm not speaking from a position against SF, but rather a position in which I've had similar problems, not with COI users, but with users who baited, and were uncivil, and I just had the thing turned around on me. Don't push for anything unless you have real evidence to back it up, otherwise it will blow up in your face.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Big chance

How is this a big chance. From what I had read at the time of the addition, I guess I had thought that you were indefinitely blocked. I was wrong, oh well, it isn't a big deal, please get over it and use this time to conbribute constructively.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC Collect

Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Rick Warren (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)