Revision as of 09:03, 2 January 2009 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,078 edits →Blocked: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:08, 2 January 2009 edit undoWhoWatches (talk | contribs)42 edits →BlockedNext edit → | ||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
You've had your fun, this is a disruptive ], p]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC) | You've had your fun, this is a disruptive ], p]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
{{Unblock|This block is clearly unjustified and has no reason to happen. I have no desire to receive phone calls or emails regarding the discussion I was in.}} |
Revision as of 09:08, 2 January 2009
Welcome
|
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Plea to take a different attitude
I'm sorry that you feel so negatively towards the project; however, your contributions at AdminWatch talk are unconstructive. I hope you can see that it's frustrating to us that you won't engage with the discussion at hand. I believe you should resolve your issues through established channels if you believe you've been unfairly treated. If you think an admin breaches the policy in relation to yourself once the AdminWatch process is live, you are welcome to notify this. It is not a retrospective process.
Because your postings are overwhelmingly negative, I ask that you remove them. Otherwise, I'll do this myself in about 14 hours. You are welcome to contribute constructively after that, but I must warn you that if you subsequently reinstate the posts, I will ask for action to be taken to prevent this recurring.
I do hope that you choose the positive pathway; I'm not trying to stifle your views—they are simply better communicated in more appropriate places on WP. Tony (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- You no doubt have been on the receiving end of actions of evil admins, so you're a chappy with axes to grind. Note that AdminWatch has been created to tackle just the sort of abuses which you may have been a victim of. If I were you, I would look to Tony as an ally in the path to redressing the scales of justice on WP. I would urge you to sit down, have a cup of coffe -second thoughts, no, coffee is a stimulant - take a few deep breaths, chant Om a few times. Once your blood pressure is back to below 120/80 and your sedentary pulse is at below 70, kindly let us have a few concrete and varied past examples of such abuse; it would also be valuable if you would share some suggestions as to how you believe the AdminWatch process should deal with these abuses. I think you are in a very good position to share your direct experience and help construct a process which will word. I am sure you are intelligent enough to know that ranting and throwing insults are likely to have a deleterious effect in achieving your goals. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism-only account
You appear to be an contributor on Misplaced Pages that is only used for vandalism. Please stop. You are welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, and you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages if you continue. Cheers, MHLU 18:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SOCK#LEGIT, Segregation and Security, Section 3: I keep this account to avoid receiving harassing emails or phone calls while entering into discussion with other Misplaced Pages users. This is not a "vandalism" account and will never enter the wikipedia article space. WhoWatches (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Section 3 says "A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle...". Whilst MHLU - who isn't an admin by the way - was wrong to drop a vandalism template on your userpage, equally I don't see a "highly controversial article" being edited here. Black Kite 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Given that there are people who commented in the AdminWatch MFD who know both my email address and phone number, I consider them within my social/professional circles (thankfully not family at least) and have no desire to deal with any emails/phone calls related to this discussion. Therefore, you are incorrect in not seeing a "highly controversial article" in question. WhoWatches (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's a user subpage not an article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Given that there are people who commented in the AdminWatch MFD who know both my email address and phone number, I consider them within my social/professional circles (thankfully not family at least) and have no desire to deal with any emails/phone calls related to this discussion. Therefore, you are incorrect in not seeing a "highly controversial article" in question. WhoWatches (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Section 3 says "A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle...". Whilst MHLU - who isn't an admin by the way - was wrong to drop a vandalism template on your userpage, equally I don't see a "highly controversial article" being edited here. Black Kite 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
You've had your fun, this is a disruptive single-purpose account, p[lease go back to your main account now. This account is blocked. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:WhoWatches (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is clearly unjustified and has no reason to happen. I have no desire to receive phone calls or emails regarding the discussion I was in.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=This block is clearly unjustified and has no reason to happen. I have no desire to receive phone calls or emails regarding the discussion I was in. |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=This block is clearly unjustified and has no reason to happen. I have no desire to receive phone calls or emails regarding the discussion I was in. |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=This block is clearly unjustified and has no reason to happen. I have no desire to receive phone calls or emails regarding the discussion I was in. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}