User talk:147.143.95.23

YOLO!

Blocked

You may not advise people to block evade.
Stop following around my edits and leaving unconstructive advice.

You are blocked for a week. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you are talking about. :]

Have you considered you might be burning out? Maybe you should consider taking a wikibreak? (seriously I am really puzzled and I noticed your talk page says your patience is short atm, am trying to be reasonable here!)

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).

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

Request reason:

not sure i fully understand what it is that is happening here. care to explain someone? - is this punitive? a punishment? to disparage me?147.143.95.23 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Note to reviewing admin: This person is a an IP-hopper I've been dealing with for a week or so now. I initially blocked him for personal attacks and 3RR violations. After a day's worth of block evading, vandalism, and tantrums, he stopped for a week. But this past weekend, an editor asked me to look into their edits. After giving a warning to the IP, he started with the tantrums again. After saying I'm done arguing them, he's now going around leaving unconstructive comments on the talk pages where I discuss blocks, including a recommendation to block evade. Pretty certain this IP is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've blown this all out of proportion Sergecross73, this is personal and you are abusing your position as admin. Don't worry, I'll reply to this properly later when I reopen the appeal and show everything you are twisting out of proportion.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I am appealing this because Sergecross73 has exaggerated what has happened, and I have not been blocked for the correct reason. I did not encourage anyone to avoid block, and I have not been posting disruptive edits. I can, if required, provide my edits from this and another account which shows my edits have been productive. So to be clear:

1. I have not made disruptive edits, otherwise I politely request Sergecross73 would provide the actual text to show where this is the case.

2. I have not encouraged anyone to block evade, again I politely request Sergecross73 to provide an examples of where this has happened. (please see further discussion of where this has happened below)

3. I am appealing this block because I believe it not nesecerry because I am not causing disruption or damage, and this block is not required to prevent damage to wikipedia because I am not damaging wikipedia - if I was, why have none of my edits on articles been reverted? - instead I am certain this block has been given to punish me.

Many thanks for your time btw, if I am unblocked then the next stage is I hope to get somebody to mediate between me and Sergecross73 so we can resolve this amicably.

147.143.95.23 (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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=I am appealing this because Sergecross73 has exaggerated what has happened, and I have not been blocked for the correct reason. I did not encourage anyone to avoid block, and I have not been posting disruptive edits. I can, if required, provide my edits from this and another account which shows my edits have been productive.  So to be clear:

1. I have not made disruptive edits, otherwise I politely request Sergecross73 would provide the actual text to show where this is the case.

2. I have not encouraged anyone to block evade, again I politely request Sergecross73 to provide an examples of where this has happened. (please see further discussion of where this has happened below)

3. I am appealing this block because I believe it not nesecerry because I am not causing disruption or damage, and this block is not required to prevent damage to wikipedia because I am not damaging wikipedia - if I was, why have none of my edits on articles been reverted? - instead I am certain this block has been given to punish me.


Many thanks for your time btw, if I am unblocked then the next stage is I hope to get somebody to mediate between me and Sergecross73 so we can resolve this amicably.

 [[Special:Contributions/147.143.95.23|147.143.95.23]] ([[User talk:147.143.95.23#top|talk]]) 10:09, 7 October 2014 (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 am appealing this because Sergecross73 has exaggerated what has happened, and I have not been blocked for the correct reason. I did not encourage anyone to avoid block, and I have not been posting disruptive edits. I can, if required, provide my edits from this and another account which shows my edits have been productive.  So to be clear:

1. I have not made disruptive edits, otherwise I politely request Sergecross73 would provide the actual text to show where this is the case.

2. I have not encouraged anyone to block evade, again I politely request Sergecross73 to provide an examples of where this has happened. (please see further discussion of where this has happened below)

3. I am appealing this block because I believe it not nesecerry because I am not causing disruption or damage, and this block is not required to prevent damage to wikipedia because I am not damaging wikipedia - if I was, why have none of my edits on articles been reverted? - instead I am certain this block has been given to punish me.


Many thanks for your time btw, if I am unblocked then the next stage is I hope to get somebody to mediate between me and Sergecross73 so we can resolve this amicably.

 [[Special:Contributions/147.143.95.23|147.143.95.23]] ([[User talk:147.143.95.23#top|talk]]) 10:09, 7 October 2014 (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 am appealing this because Sergecross73 has exaggerated what has happened, and I have not been blocked for the correct reason. I did not encourage anyone to avoid block, and I have not been posting disruptive edits. I can, if required, provide my edits from this and another account which shows my edits have been productive.  So to be clear:

1. I have not made disruptive edits, otherwise I politely request Sergecross73 would provide the actual text to show where this is the case.

2. I have not encouraged anyone to block evade, again I politely request Sergecross73 to provide an examples of where this has happened. (please see further discussion of where this has happened below)

3. I am appealing this block because I believe it not nesecerry because I am not causing disruption or damage, and this block is not required to prevent damage to wikipedia because I am not damaging wikipedia - if I was, why have none of my edits on articles been reverted? - instead I am certain this block has been given to punish me.


Many thanks for your time btw, if I am unblocked then the next stage is I hope to get somebody to mediate between me and Sergecross73 so we can resolve this amicably.

 [[Special:Contributions/147.143.95.23|147.143.95.23]] ([[User talk:147.143.95.23#top|talk]]) 10:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Not the blocking admin, but comments such as this are problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is exactly why he was blocked. It's clearly advising someone to block evade. I've blocked this Person 'many times for block evasion, and myself and others have told him block evasion is not okay, so it's not like he didn't know this was a problem. Sergecross73 msg me 11:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was an observation and I thought I was referring to something which is generally common knowledge, it was really not my intention to encourage someone to block avoid. This is the internet, so I would have been more direct if that was my intention. I guess I can see how it might be interpretable as that, but that requires going beyond what was actually said.

What you did was pretty direct though. You sought out a person I had blocked in the past, of which you had no reason to interact with otherwise, and made a comment about blocks being no big deal when people can just refresh their router. What possible other purpose would this act do? What exactly are you proposing happened. Just offering random musings to random people for no particular reason? And it's just a huge coincidence that it's someone I blocked recently? Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained I was looking at your profile to look at your conduct towards other reasons, haven't you read that? And I have Aspergers, so I'm pretty methodological, like I've looked at all your posting and know you've advised people to set up their own MMA page; advised against making an issue against KWKW, told somebody thank you for you editing your earthworm jim article, your posts on the video game page, chats with Lukejordon, Fireball, Tezono who's edit you reverted....

See, I was just checking up on you to see how you behave generally.

And that's fine (I mean, if that's really what you want to do with your time.) Youre free to observe all you like. But you were not blocked for observing. You were blocked for your unconstructive and disruptive edits. Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above, Sergecross73's latest comment

Sought out, really, you think I searched for someone you blocked? And to give them advice, no, I was actually interested to see how you interacted with other people and to see if the thing I've experienced is typical of your behaviour - basically an Admin blocking people for punishment... This is a huge erroneous assumption too, that I was trying to help people evade blocks, if I was really motivated to help people evade blocks, then I would have checked one of the pages where it lists who is block, or who is appealing blocks and posted that advice to everything. And do you really think in 2014 people don't understand about static/dynamic IPS?.

And blocked recently? I had no idea it was you who blocked them... And it was ages so even if so, is this block really for the intended purpose of stoping me from ruining wikipedia or is it a punishment? I'm not convinced it is.

Also the same as the block of the other account was instigated 8 hours after the offence took place, despite you and me talking previous to the block, and after the offence on the talk page, and your main point of blocking me was make sure I'm civil... So again the first block was also punishment rather than to save wikipedia.

I blocked him last week. And your unsolicited advice makes no sense in any other context other than what I described. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reply here

You think my explanation makes no sense? That I was looking at your conduct is less likely than your interpretation that I was attempting to encouraging block evading? If that is the case, then why did I only do it in the one instance... And why would I have specifically sought out someone you blocked... How would I even found out that information... You think that is all more likely than I was looking at your conduct to see if bullying was common behaviour from you.

And no explanation of what the purpose of this block is by the way, I see no other explanation other than this is punitive rather than for the prescribed reasons. Thanks for the comment.

Its very easy to look up people's edits and see who they blocked.
The block was not punitive. Your edits were disruptive. You were advising someone to block evade, not to mention leaving unhelpful comments on my talk page, on conversations that did not involve you. Standard block per WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE. Your attempts to advise me on policy have all been terrible and misguided. I again request that you stop. You don't understand the things you keep trying to quote. Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

latest new reply

Do you actually believe I was advising him? What is my motivation? Who on earth would actually do that, are you lying or do you honestly believe this?

And edits were disruptive? Where? Examples of disruptive edits?

And how is this not punitive? You are punishing me for something you think I did wrong and you are lying about the motivation. This is bullying.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sanctions_against_editors_should_not_be_punitive

Disruptive. No one was talking to you. It didn't concern you. And it wasn't constructive.] Blocking for disruptive editing is not punitive. Like usual, you do not understand policy. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually re-reading I see what you mean, but it wasn't supposed to be meant as actual advice! But I see how it can be seen as subversive.

What would we need "mediation" on? I've had to warn you to follow policy a bunch of times, but there's nothing to resolve, no actual dispute. You need to follow the rules, and not spend 99% of your efforts arguing with me about policy that you clearly don't understand. Your actual edits to the articles pale in comparison to your argument. Try actually editing the encyclopedia for a change. (After your block. ) Sergecross73 msg me 11:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This all started with you accusing me of "campaigning" on the ISIS talk page after my previous block ran out (where you and two fellow admins bullied me because the point I made which was mentioned in an actual article, was not mentioned in the abstract - and I pointed out that I worked in the field so understood the subject matter), when I said there's was something called the "not in my name campaign" in the UK, and that was an example of the international Muslim community speaking out... You twisted it to say I was campaigning for an odd point of view, when I was actually discussing things with people - who agreed it would be terrible to not mention that.

And now you accuse me of disruptive edits despite having no examples of where I've been disruptive, its just your option from a comment on a talk page, where ever single other editor agreed with me, to the extent that a new sections as added to an extremely high profile page.

I warned you to be mindful of WP:PROMOTION. That's it. That's literally all that happened. I didn't go into detail. I did not chastise any particular message you were trying to make. I even actively have told you that I don't monitor or maintain any of those articles. I informed you of a policy. And yet you've somehow managed to drag this out into multiple days now. Sergecross73 msg me 12:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like misunderstanding then, as I thought you gave me an official warning.

There is no degree of "officiality" to the warnings given on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm confused -- if its a warning, it was given in error it wasn't seen in the wider context; if it was friendly advice, then thats fine and I correctly explained how you had misinterpreted things :)

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.