Personperson1234567

2009 November

Your edits to “Phi Kappa Psi” ([1][2][3]) were vandalism (as is made especially clear by the third edit. If you persist then you will be blocked from editing. You may as well stop now. —SlamDiego_←T 10:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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).

Personperson1234567 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here

Decline reason:

per what the blocked user said below, attacking other editors is unlikely to result in getting unblocked. Please also read WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD and indicate how you will avoid getting blocked again should you be unblocked. Jayron32 01:45, 5 December 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.

If your editor wasn't a bumbling follower he would notice that the corrections i made were actually valid (notice link to article) 2nd, that most fraternity pages don't have a section of "controversies" so that it is unfair to include in one what has not been included in another 3rd, that he seems to be only protecting an original posting not a modified which in this case is far more accurate. I would appreciate editors that actually validate/verify that others are correctly modifying information.

Personperson1234567 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but your insult is somewhat unclear, did you mean to call me a "bumbling follower" or SlamDiego? It's important to be clear about who it is you are being rude and nasty to. If you find you are being reverted, the appropriate course of action is to discuss the matter on the talk page as opposed to edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't being nasty, simply stating a fact that "slamdiego" wasn't actually fact checking. Please read the article. And further more you are ignoring the more important part of this that other such organizations don't have the same controversy pages on their pages.

In fact, as was earlier discussed when the controversies section was first created, other organizations do have controversies sections, and some organizations have entire articles dedicated just to controversies. Mind you that the argument that something has or has not been done in another article holds very little sway; the lack of a controversies section for some other organizations may simply indicate that those articles need more work.

As to fact-checking, although the alleged drugging was by an unidentified man, you have repeatedly tried to erase the allegation of sexual assault in the guise of noting that the alleged drugging was by an unknown person (and the source does not support a claim that the alleged sexual assailants were not identified to police).

Your use of a sock- or meat-puppet account to edit the article while under a block is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

Finally, note that Wikipedia has a policy against personally attacking other editors. —SlamDiego_←T 03:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Now indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry

I have extended the block of your account to indefinite for continued sock puppetry in order to gain the upper hand in the Phi Kappa Psi article. MuZemike 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)