KrazyKlimber
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Where does it say that I have a conflict of interest? Why would you think that? I have no idea what you are talking about. Ylevental (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- You are a personal friend of the subject. That's COI. KrazyKlimber (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why would you think that? Instead of reverting the article, edit it as you would any other article, or I will settle this with the admins. Ylevental (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Go ahead and talk to the admins. You are a personal friend of Mitchell's and I can prove it. Stop editing the article per COI. KrazyKlimber (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why would you think that? Instead of reverting the article, edit it as you would any other article, or I will settle this with the admins. Ylevental (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't post personal information about other editors that they have not voluntarily revealed. This is a form of harassment. You will be blocked if you do it again. — Earwig talk 22:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
KrazyKlimber, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi KrazyKlimber! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
January 2016
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
KrazyKlimber (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
An error has been made assuming that my account is a single purpose account. I barely had a chance to establish myself and no one looked at my entire list of edits. The personal attack/harassment accusation I reject on the grounds that I was pursuing a COI issue and I did try to avoid crossing the line once it was brought to my attention. That as I said to Earwig was going to be hard but I made the commitment. I've been offline since because real life intervened as it does from time to time, and I assume that was why my account was judged as single purpose. It's not. I haven't been given the chance to participate more widely as was my intention from the beginning. I ask that WP:NEWBIE be applied and that my account be unblocked as a premature act. I might not like the AfD decision but I have to accept it per WP:CONSENSUS. The most important thing is that the COI issue has been settled and we can all move on from this. I have other unrelated edits I wish to do and I can not do that blocked. KrazyKlimber (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Additional: I don't agree with the assertion on the talk page of Jonathan Mitchell that there's an issue with neutrality. The wording (with one exception which I fixed) was fine. My issue with it was notability, not neutrality.
Decline reason:
Your clear block evasion with the IP address negates any possibility of unblock. only (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2016 (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.
KrazyKlimber (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There has been no block evasion. I formally request a check user to confirm that the IP you claim I was editing under was not me. I have not edited anywhere other than this talk page since the block was effected. KrazyKlimber (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No; this edit followed by an identical anon edit after you were blocked is enough to satisfy WP:DUCK criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:03, 14 January 2016 (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.
- To reviewing admins, see User talk:101.182.100.189. only (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Warning
editThere is clearly a protectionist regime going on here and a witch hunt to boot. The duck rule has been abused to effect this. The article Jonathan Mitchell isn't promotional as that IP that is NOT me claims. It's not notable. As I have been blocked for false reasons, I give notice that I am consulting my lawyers for slander by the blocking admin and reviewing admins. Delete the Jonathan Mitchell article. He's not notable. I maintain that I have not socked but you lot refuse to believe the truth. Well it will likely be sorted out in a court room now. You can re-block this account for legal threats if you want. I will not be slandered and if making the warning is blockable conduct then so be it. KrazyKlimber (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your talk page access has been revoked. Your Internet-Lawyer can use WP:UTRS for further proceedings. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)