Redban02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My blocked account is User:Redban. I have trouble with the password in that account, so I cannot use it at all. I hope my unblock appeal can be heard here. I believe that the block is unwarranted, especially its "indefinite" time-frame.
The issue in the ANI discussion is that I had "carelessly" mass-nominated clearly-notable pornographic biographies for deletion. Altogether, I nominated 15 articles, which you can see Here. The ones I nominated were: Gracie Glam, Rod Fontana, Marco Banderas, Rebecca Linares, Brittney Skye, Jessica Jaymes, Jayden Jaymes, Tory Lane, Angelina Valentine, Carmella Bing, Nikki Nova, Lanny Barbie, Sky Lopez, Shyla Stylez, Memphis Monroe.
Now that all of them have closed, we can make a tally. Of the 15 AFDs, 7 resulted in a Keep, 4 in Delete, and 4 in no consensus. An 11/15 success ratio is evidence that I was acting in good-faith, or at least in good sense.
I believe that the blocking admin Postdlf was acting in bad faith. He was WP:INVOLVED based on the following evidence:
1) He was engaged with myself in a content dispute regarding the underlying matter
2) He summarily closed two of my AFDs with a terse sentence here and here
WP:Block says clearly that Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute, making Postdlf's block invalid. I hope an uninvolved admin can make a proper judgment call. At the very least, I humbly ask that the block be changed from "indefinite" to a certain time-frame, such as 1-month. Please give me a chance, at least. Redban02 (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am putting some links here for reference:
Chillum 01:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to clarify WP:INVOLVED, it says "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.
".
The closure of the AfDs would be considered purely an administrative role. The other comment[1] in my opinion does not speak to a bias, he/she is just listing some facts. I cannot accept the unblock request on the basis of admin involvement in a dispute.
That being said I will still ping the blocking admin @Postdlf: to see if he/she is willing to reconsider the duration. In addition to that possibility there is also the standard offer. While the standard offer is not a promise it is generally given consideration when good faith can be assumed.
Until you are unblocked I will have to block this account as well. I will note in the log that you are not engaging in block evasion and that you are seeking appeal and lost your password. Oh, and Postdlf it would make reviewing much easier if you used the "Permanent link" button when linking to discussion in the log. Chillum 01:27, 6 January 2015 (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 will note that a CU on IRC has confirmed this is User:Redban and User:Percentagesign. Chillum 01:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Also Redban02, now that I see the Percentagesign account it seems you have not addressed the reason for the block escalation which is sock puppetry. Don't count on a change in duration or the standard offer until you address these concerns. Chillum 01:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
At the time, I thought the "retirement" tag meant I could open a new account without allegations of sockpuppetry. I didn't fully know the rules as yet. I don't have any other active accounts right now besides this one, and I hope I can edit solely from this one. Redban02 (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Particularly since the rampant wikilawyering belies your protestations of innocent ignorance. postdlf (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Look postdlf. I'm willing to take a punishment. If you want to punish me, I'll take a 1-month, 3-month, 6-month ban,. But at least give me a shot to came back legitimately. Even people in real-life commit crimes yet get another chance after they serve their time in prison. If the law gives criminals another shot, then why deny me another shot in far less-serious venue? I think my position here is reasonable. Redban02 (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Redban02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am making a second request here, as I believe the first decline erred significantly. Chillum addressed my claim that Postdlf was acting in bad faith, but Chillum did not address my primary point regarding "Disruptive Editing," which is the reason Postdlf offers in my block log:
Again, the ANI discussion is here:
The issue in the ANI discussion is that I had "carelessly" mass-nominated clearly-notable pornographic biographies for deletion. The error is that my nominations were not careless or irrational. Altogether, I nominated 15 articles, which you can see here:
The articles I nominated were: Gracie Glam, Rod Fontana, Marco Banderas, Rebecca Linares, Brittney Skye, Jessica Jaymes, Jayden Jaymes, Tory Lane, Angelina Valentine, Carmella Bing, Nikki Nova, Lanny Barbie, Sky Lopez, Shyla Stylez, Memphis Monroe.
Now that all of them have closed, we can make a tally. Of the 15 AFDs, 7 resulted in Delete, 4 in Keep, and 4 in no consensus. An 11/15 success ratio is evidence that I was acting in good-faith, or at least in good sense. I understand that I made a mistake by making another account (Percentagesign) following Postdlf's ban, but if the initial ban was unjustified, then any "sockpuppetry" must be disregarded. You cannot charge someone for resisting arrest if the arrest is false, can you?
Redban02 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
To answer your final question, yes, I'm fairly sure we can. If I was blocked for plagiarism tomorrow (for example), I wouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia. If I was to create puppets to evade the block, then I could be blocked for sock puppetry, even if the plagiarism accusation was unfounded. Overall, I agree with Postdlf about your tendency to wikilawayer. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2015 (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.
Redban02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The admin above still did not address the main issue. Instead, he/she takes a straw-man approach ("To your final question") while resorting to insults, as Postdlf did ("wikilawyer"). Again, Again, the ANI discussion is here The issue in the ANI discussion is that I had "carelessly" mass-nominated clearly-notable pornographic biographies for deletion. The error is that my nominations were not careless or irrational. Altogether, I nominated 15 articles, which you can see here The articles I nominated were: Gracie Glam, Rod Fontana, Marco Banderas, Rebecca Linares, Brittney Skye, Jessica Jaymes, Jayden Jaymes, Tory Lane, Angelina Valentine, Carmella Bing, Nikki Nova, Lanny Barbie, Sky Lopez, Shyla Stylez, Memphis Monroe. Now that all of them have closed, we can make a tally. Of the 15 AFDs, 7 resulted in Delete, 4 in Keep, and 4 in no consensus. An 11/15 success ratio is evidence that I was acting in good-faith, or at least in good sense. If the AFDs were successful 11 out of 15 times, then where was the disruption, which Postdlf cites in my block log?!?! You can argue that Postdlf blocked me for the Percentagesign account, but in the ANI discussion, he said this before he discovered the second account: The use of that retired template is also unusual for a new editor. I can't say I put a lot of trust in its use here. My inclination is now to indef block the account so they have to present an argument for reactivating the account, rather than letting them sneak back when no one's paying attention. Postdlf didn't care about sockpuppetry. As you see here, he had already made up his mind to indefinitely block me, for whatever reason. Before he made this statement, no one in the ANI discussion, involved or not, had suggested a block, let alone indefinite. If another admin wants to punish me for the Percentagesign account despite Postdlf's unwarranted ban, then I'll take a block that has a time-frame, not indefinite. I don't see any error in that position. An uninvolved admin can support the ban, but he/she can understand the excessiveness of Postdlf's making it "indefinite," or infinite. In short, I am willing to return under any condition (behavioral or otherwise) that an uninvolved admin finds necessary or appropriate. But, at least allow me to return. Redban02 (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You keep posting unblock requests which just go over the same points again, at great length, and do not take on board what has been said to you. Instead of addressing what about your editing led to your being indefinitely blocked, you just make absurd attacks on others. Add to that the fact that, as far as I can see, you have never addressed the issue of your gross dishonesty in sockpuppetry, including such blatant attempts at deception as referring to yourself as "he" and posting a "retired" message to your user page while clearly intending to continue editing, and there is no case at all for unblocking. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2015 (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.
NOTE to uninvolved administrators.
Postdlf posted this to admin PhilKnight's page upon my making this appeal:
Ahem. Suggest reverting and blocking that account from editing their own talk page, as three lengthy unblock requests within a day and a half is rather beyond the pale. Incidentally, they've really gone out of their way to prove that the Redban "retirement" was in bad faith, as has been pretty much everything they've said and done under whatever account. Link
Postdlf is trying to break the rules outlined in "Guide to Appealing Blocks" by denying me an uninvolved admin's review. Instead of asking people to shut off the discussion, he needs to explain how an 11/15 success rate in AFDs qualified as disruptive. I want to stay civil, but I cannot understand how Postdlf became an adminstrator in the first place. Redban02 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Relax. I'm not going to revoke your talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Redban02 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I expect you to accept by your next block review. You do not get unlimited unblock requests. If you make another unblock request after this I will revoke your talk page access for excess use of the unblock template. There are other people that need their blocks reviewed and you are taking a disproportionate amount of our time. Chillum 22:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)