MTO Poster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The admin made an error in blocking my ip address. I have been having a back and forth edit war with another editor named Belated. For the past month, I've been trying to get him to be objective in his wiki for the website Media Take Out. The problem is he will not allow any post other than "criticism" of the site. Whenever I tried to add anything positive on the site, he would revery to the only "negative" post. Anyway, I was posting anonymously until January 28th when I finally decided to register under the name MTO_Poster. Since Januray 28th I have consistently made all comments using the name MTO_Poster. One time, I forgot to log into wiki when I was making a post and it came up anonymously. But if you look by the history, I was not trying to hide who I was. It was an honest mistake and it only happened once. If you look into the threads history, you'll see I'm telling the truth
Decline reason:
Ok, I agree with that; this is not an attempt to be deceptive with an IP address, but rather a case of a user accidentally not logging in which is not forbidden. But I'm declining this request because there is an underlying issue: you seem to be editing inappropriately with a conflict of interest: your username suggests you represent MTO. Please read Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest and leave a new unblock request when you have a response to this concern. Mangojuicetalk 21:01, 5 March 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.
- I've asked the blocking admin to comment. Please keep in mind, however, that making legal threats is completely unacceptable, and always results in an immediate indef block. You cannot be unblocked until you state clearly that you have no intentions of taking legal action against any editor or this project. Also, rather than reverting, try commenting on an editor's talk page if you feel your edit should have remained. Edit warring is a blockable offense for all but a very few specifically defined reasons. Please also take a look at our policy regarding conflicts of interest. - auburnpilot talk 19:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. I agree not to take any legal action.
MTO Poster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Blocking admin has not yet commented
Decline reason:
The admin is not available right now; please be patient. — kurykh 09:33, 4 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.
- Hi there, I seem to have forgotten about this, my sincere apologies. As User:AuburnPilot said, you should really comment on talk pages instead of reverting - to stop Edit Wars. Also, it seems that you have a conflict of interest with the article which is discouraged. Before you consider re-editing Wikipedia, please see no legal threats and the indroduction to know what Wikipedia is about. Then you may also want to read this page which lets you know all about conflicts of interests. Per AuburnPilot, on my talk page archive here, I am currently not sure about an unblock (although I am assuming good faith) - and will appreciate the views of another admin in this matter.
- Regards,
The company is under attack by users looking to post blatantly negative posts. Currently the wikipedia page says he following - "MTO's journalistic integrity has come into question due to the lack of basic grammatical skills by its writers. The site has come under further criticism because the site has been known to start rumors/lies and perpetuate negative stereotypes of black people. Media Take Out has also been known to demand recognition when they are the first to report an event and even put their logo on other people's copyrighted images, but yet never give credits to the stories, videos, and pictures from other sites they have been taken from."
There are NO cited sources and the above is clearly opinion and not fact. And the last sentence is a blatant lie - if you look at the site you can see that close to 100 other sites are credited every day.
When I (who am NOT associated in any way with MTO) recognized this, I tried to correct this - first by trying to delete the above text (which is NOT fact). Then, by placing other text that would balance out the criticism of the site with some of it's credited stories. And when I did that, the user concocted some story to get me banned.
Then end result here is that I've attempted to work withing the Wikipedia system and for whatever reason you believe that it's OK to have opinionated lies on the page of Media Take Out. It's sad that this is what Wikipedia has come to.
MTO Poster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
A group of users have maliciously concocted a plan to place lies an opinions on Media Take Out's page. If you decide that you want to ban me that's fine. But please remove the opinion and lies of MTOs page. As I explained above, there are a group of Wiki users who are on a campaign to defame the site. I request that you remove the "Criticism" paragraph and lock for future comments. Then I'd be happy to never visit Wikipedia again
Decline reason:
I think Ricky's response is the best you can hope for. This is, however, not really a request to be unblocked, so I'm declining it. Note that in the future, should that section be re-added with an adequate source it might have to remain: it's one thing to have anonymous criticism effectively from editors, it's another to discuss notable, published criticism. Mangojuicetalk 15:12, 9 March 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.
- I have removed the unsourced statements here as they have been there long enough unsourced, and will be watching the page from now on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)