Wawaxi
Welcome
edit
|
July 2016
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)See, bbb23, this shows how you are either immature or lack professionalism that you would block for self interests. I should not bother to appeal the block because if someone entrusted with such high level powers as you engages is so much misconduct, Wikipedia attracts the wrong crowd as admins.
A word of personal advice. Do not act this way in life because you may get bitten and have to face up to personal responsibility for an attitude like yours.
I said something because I am very certain that I am in a different country than whiskeymouth so chexck users could verify that.
As a matter of a test, I will ask unblock but would be shocked if fairness prevailed and it was done.
Wawaxi (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Wawaxi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
We have a few problems here. First of all it odd that someone who has not edited in years suddenly shows up to join into an incident declaring themselves as an "uninvolved user". It is hard to understand how an uninvolved user would even find this discussion out of the hundreds of such discussions that happen daily. This is compounded by the fact that the person you were defending was at the time engaged in abusing multiple accounts. This really needs to be explained as we prohibit both one person using multiple accounts and off wiki coordination of multiple people to further a goal. It really looks like one or the other is happening here.
Another issue is that unblock requests are generally not made by a 3rd party, they need to be made by the person blocked.
The last problem is that you are being a abusive to our volunteers. You are suggesting that conspiracies are taking place, you refer to people as "unprofessional", "immature" and "juvenile" and suggest they "lack life experience". You were seen as a sock/meat puppet because your behaviour is exactly like that of a sock/meat puppet, specifically you showed up after years of inactivity to jump into a discussion with strong opinions when there is really no way you would have found it by chance. It is this, not a "lack of convincing argument", that makes you look suspect.
Even you unblock request is a continuation of this assumption of bad faith. Before I think about unblocking you I need some sort of explanation as to how you ended up in that discussion and a reasonable belief that you are not going to continue with the combative attitude. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 16:10, 3 July 2016 (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.
Reason: my edit history within the past 8 hours is short and easy to see. Wawaxi (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am contacting the blocking admin to get a better understanding of this block. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 14:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- proof that you deny an unblock request before looking into it.
- every time I look into Wikipedia, I see a lack of professionlism and just shake my head. I commented, in part, because I was certain that I am in a different country than the involved users based on syntax clues.
- your denial is not surprising but unfortunate. My block is solely for exercising freedom of speech as WP is USA based. Wawaxi (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well that is a great example of what I was talking about. I did look at your edits, and I talked to the blocking admin. You just assumed bad faith on my part and accused me of denying your request without looking. I have explained to you what the issues are. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 16:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also take a look at Wikipedia:Free speech. Free speech means you can say whatever you like on your own website, it does not mean you can say whatever you like on someone else's website. If you are going to demand your US rights you should learn their limits. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 16:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- as you asked. I saw the issue in the category unblock page.
- as you asked, I do not plan to write about this whiskeyman issue but was more concerned about lack of professionalism and transparency.
- i do not claim a legal violation of free speech but say it violates the principle.
- I am disappointed that your harsh and unfair response is not becoming of a good admin. Sorry. I suspect a lot of vandalism is a result of less than optimal admin handling of matters. I cannot vouch for whiskeyman but that type of handling is liable to start long term wikipedia vandalism. Winklelvi may be combative because of prior unfair blocks so he has evolved into a disruptive user that knows how to avoid indefinite blocks. Wawaxi (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wawaxi, as you are continuing with your personal attacks on other Wikipedia editors here, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of your block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)