Tannim1
Administrator Censorship
editI herby accuse Luna Santin, Tnxman 310 and jpgordan of engaging in direct violation of Wikipedia open access rules. They refuse to discuss a situation and blocked me because I make politicaly incorrect points.Tannim1 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, you were blocked as a sockpuppet. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 21:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I have not posted in a year. What possible reason other than censorship is there to block me?Tannim1 (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Bullshit. Your contributions come from 9/11/09 to today. That's not even a week. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 23:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me be clear, I have not posted in a year since the first post from the history of Tannim1
I would apreciate some civility on my page. This is a prime example of administrator abuse.Tannim1 (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Bullshit; this account's first edit is from September 11, 2009. You are lying. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 23:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Tannim1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
there is no reason to block and Luna Santin is violating the good faith rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet
Decline reason:
You've been blocked as a sockpuppet. Also, don't blame others for your block. TNXMan 18:25, 14 September 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.
Tannim1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have done nothing wrong and I had waited a significant legnth of time bfeore returning to post. Note I have been mostly on discussion pages.
Decline reason:
Busted dead-to-rights via WP:DUCK; you are User:MagicKirin and User:Tannim by way of contributions. Declined. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 21:58, 16 September 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.
Tannim1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not getting a fair hearing, adminis refuse to investigate
Decline reason:
You are lying through your teeth above. I am investigating, and I'm not impressed by the perjury in this instance. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 23:07, 16 September 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.
Tannim1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Administrator Abuse I am essentially a new poster still dealing with grudges from pc administrators. Could I have an administrator review this who does not engage in personal attacks as Jeske didTannim1 (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You do not address the reason for your block, which is your abuse of multiple accounts. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:52, 16 September 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.
Please, if you're still requesting unblock, don't remove previous unblock requests. Administrators need to see what you've said about your block, and it can be confusing- you can see that, after you removed the request, Jeremy lost track and reviewed your request twice. Thanks for leaving the previous requests in place. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've spent a little time reviewing the contributions of this account, and they all seem to indicate that you are trying to push a specific political point of view into Wikipedia. That's a serious problem, so you may relax knowing that, even if you aren't the same person as User:Tannim, you would still be blocked for pushing your point of view. Wikipedia doesn't really need warriors for the Truth, but people interested in the verifiable facts. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Fisher Queen:
How are these not facts:
AL Gore's lack of environmental expertise Hugo chavez supporting of FARC Most experts rejecting Jimmy Carter's book
It seems that inconvenient facts are being attacked. I've looked at the admins record and they are more guilty of this. What Wikipeda needs is for administrators not to abuse their positions.65.96.135.71 (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC) You can't appeal the block if you are banned from pages, I will do what I feel is justfied to break this unfair block.65.96.135.71 (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not Rush Limbaugh, chummer. Nor is it Keith Olbermann or any other political pundit. By the by, evading a block only makes it much harder to get the original block overturned. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 09:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that you think that your "facts" should become part of the encyclopedia. It looks like people have tried to explain to you how [[WP:NPOV}neutral point of view works]], but for some reason, you have not been able to understand the concept. That's unfortunate, but it does mean that you are not going to be able to edit Wikipedia in a way that would help the encyclopedia. Your use of multiple accounts is fundamentally dishonest, so it means that, even if you figure out neutrality and decide you'd like to edit, no one will believe what you say- your time at Wikipedia has ended. You won't be able to create another account and simply edit without anyone knowing, because the basic problem- that you don't understand what neutrality is- is in you, and will inevitably turn up in your edits- any account you create will be blocked for that reason, even if other users don't realize that you've been blocked before. There are thousands of editors and administrators who understand neutrality and enjoy removing bias from articles, so we won't really get tired of undoing your edits and blocking you, and more people join Wikipedia every day, so we can keep undoing your edits and blocking you for the rest of your life, if that's what you decide you want. But spending your days getting angry, making edits and accounts that you know aren't going to ultimately be part of the encyclopedia, is a pretty big waste of your time. At this point, the choice is yours. Nothing you write is going to be part of Wikipedia. You can keep writing things, knowing that your effort is pointless. Or you can decide that this 'neutrality' concept means you don't want anything to do with the encyclopedia, give up on Wikipedia, and go on with your life elsewhere. Maybe start a blog where you can write your ideas without anyone objecting. It's your choice, of course, and I don't mind continuing to revert and block you for the next 20 or 30 years if you like. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Restored the above discussion. Do not remove it while you are requesting unblock, it just makes it harder for people to review your case. It won't fool anyone. Mangojuicetalk 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Tannim1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am being censored. Please have an administrator who will have the courtesy to discuss and not just reflexivly back up administrator abuse.
Decline reason:
Asked and answered above. You are blocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked user. There is ample evidence behind it. This is the opinion of 5 admins. To prevent you from wasting any more of our time, I'm revoking the privelege of editing this page so you may make no further requests. Mangojuicetalk 20:51, 17 September 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.
Unblocked
editAfter extensive discussions, I have unblocked Tannim1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In our discussions I emphasized the need for contributions to articles, rather than engaging in disputes. I will be monitoring his editing. Fred Talk 14:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This is just an example to Mango Juice, Jeske, Luna Satin and the rest of the administrators who are breaking Wikipedia rules that I can get through anytime I want.
Note you could all take lessons from Fred Bauder on proper courtesy to editors.Tannim2 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)