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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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.

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.

Administrator use only:

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=No incivility to block for.  Moreover, there is an alternate explanation for the block: he took personal offense. |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=No incivility to block for.  Moreover, there is an alternate explanation for the block: he took personal offense. |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=No incivility to block for.  Moreover, there is an alternate explanation for the block: he took personal offense. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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)[reply]

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)[reply]