SilverFox93
Hi SilverFox93. I noticed you created a Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. That being said, I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and Wikipedia:Not now, and ask you to reconsider whether you really do wish to go through with your candidacy; please understand that you stand very little to no chance of passing RfA at this point and that you are strongly discouraged from running for adminship. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that request and are absolutely positive this is what you want, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want other users to !vote on your RfA, you will need to transclude it at WP:RFA. However, as stated above, new users have a very low chance at succeeding in RfAs. Successful candidates have at least 4000 edits nowadays, and with only 33 edits, you do not stand a very good chance. Of course, I cannot force you to do anything, it is entirely up to you, but please take into consideration what I have said. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
My content was factual, carefully worded and properly sourced (e.g. BBC). It contained no statements of opinion or inferences; merely statements of fact (e.g. quoting a BBC article). I have attempted to rationnaly argue my case against redactions; however, all my statements have been deleted and my account blocked. --SilverFox93 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Warning
editThis is the only warning you will receive. You are reverting the removal of contentious and potentially defamatory material from a biographical article. Your sources do not support the inference you place on them; either they are primary sources about the subject in his role or they are sources about the issue with his former employer which do not mention him by name. You have few or no other edits, those you do have point to this being an agenda account. If you repeat the insertion of this material you may be blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The material is not contentious as it is merely a factual statement of sources such as the BBC. I have not placed any inferences on the sources quoted. The sources are reliable, e.g. BBC. I have other edits which are unrelated. My account is not an agenda account. I have reverted unjustified deltions of factual, reliably sources material produced by a number of contributors.
- Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Hector Sants. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 17:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
editYou seem very determined to pursue an agenda in a way which is aggressive and places the project in legal jeopardy. I'm afraid that is not acceptable. You must also by now have read the policy on biographies; this applies everywhere including talk pages. As I said above, I have blocked you. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
SilverFox93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
unfairly blocked
Decline reason:
You asked to be unblocked because the block itself was unfair. I reviewed your request, and saw that you were blocked for adding contentious and potentially defamatory material from a biography of a living person, failing to source your changes adequeately, in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Your edit history shows that you did, in fact, do that, and so this is not an unfair block. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:28, 27 November 2010 (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.
SilverFox93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
unblock refusal was rushed and did not properly consider my case
Decline reason:
I've made the same review and come to the same conclusion as FisherQueen. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:40, 27 November 2010 (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.
My content was factual, carefully worded and properly sourced (e.g. BBC). It contained no statements of opinion or inferences, merely relevant statements of fact (e.g. quoting a BBC article). I have attempted to rationally argue my case against the redactions; however, all my statements have been deleted. I requested that the editor who carried out the redactions should instead suggest amendments; however he simply deleted my argumdents and blocked my account.
SilverFox93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
rushed decision--SilverFox93 (talk) 4:45 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
Perhaps if you wrote a good unblock request, instead of a two word demand, you would receive a good review. TNXMan 22:14, 27 November 2010 (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.
How can you possibly have properly and carefully reviewed my unblock request as it took you less than 5 minutes to decline? To properly read and consider the article and deleted discussions would take much longer than 5 minutes.--SilverFox93 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Continuing to post unblock requests that do not address the issue(s) that prompted your block is disruptive. Your ability to edit this page will be blocked if you persist in this disruption. Tiderolls 22:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why you created AlexBGT (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 21:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi MuZemike, are you asking me why I created the Iran section in the Hector Sants article? I don't understand what you mean by your reference to "AlexBGT"--SilverFox93 (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- The account AlexBGT was created from this IP address, presumably by you. Did you create this account, and with what purpose did you plan to use it for? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I did NOT create the account AlexBGT. My ISP gives dynamic IP addreses which change regularly. I suspect that if you check the IP address used to create my account (SilverFox93), you will find that it is a different address. I could easily change my IP address right now by rebooting my router, but I do not want to try to bypass Wikipedia's security measures. I just want a fair opportunity to rationally and politely argue my case without having my carefully researched contributions redacted with little or no thought. --SilverFox93 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
SilverFox93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I just want a fair opportunity to rationally and politely argue my case without having my carefully researched contributions redacted with little or no thought, and without proper explanation or willingness to discuss.--SilverFox93 (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Despite the warning by Tide rolls above, this is another unblock request that does not address the reason for your block. I am removing your ability to edit your talk page; you can send any further appeals to WP:BASC. Sandstein 22:59, 27 November 2010 (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.
@TNXMan, do you have any substantive reasons for refusing my unblock request? Did you properly read and consider my content which triggered the block? If so, please explain your reasons for refusing my unblock request in detail, referring to the specific aspects of my contributions which you object to and detailed reasons for your objections. Or did you simply refuse the unblock request with little or no consideration?--SilverFox93 (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
On unblock requests and the contentious content
editSilverFox, I have told you this before and I will tell you again. You included contentious and potentially defamatory content in a biography of a living person. A rich, powerful, well connected living person with excellent lawyers. It is contentious because simply by including it in the article you are drawing an inference that he was complicit in the events you documented. However, not one of the sources you cited included both his name and the incident. None of them. So, by conflating the two you were engaging in a novel synthesis, which is forbidden. By doing so in a biography you violated our policy on biographies of living individuals, which is absolutely forbidden. By repeating the edits and continuing to promote the content rather than discussing and trying to understand the reasons why it was a problem you were engaging in edit warring and tendentious editing, to the point of disruption.
You say the "carefully researched" contributions were redacted with "little or no thought". You are wrong. I thought long and hard about it. Rather harder than you thought about the comments I made to you, apparently.
Your unblock requests make it plain that if you are unblocked, you will continue to do all of this because you still have not understood that what you did was wrong, or why it was wrong. Your actions placed the entire project in legal jeopardy. And you. They placed you in legal jeopardy as well. What the admins above are looking for is the sign of the little light bulb going on over your head that says "Ah, now I get it!". They are not seeing that. I think that's because you still don't get it. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)