You have been blocked indefinitely due to community consensus at ANI that your battleground behaviour and continued harassment of Davey2010 is unacceptable. You may appeal the ban following the process detailed at WP:UNBAN. —Dark 02:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkFalls: The editor has been ostracized to be sure. However, there is no formal community ban in place here. The editor is indefinitely blocked, not community banned. Therefore, there is no point in directing him to an appeal at WP:UNBAN. The only way is to file an appeal under WP: GAB. Not that he will be unblocked, but just a note for closing future, similar cases. Cheers :) Doc talk 11:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

I hereby appeal this ban. If I am unbanned, then going forward, I promise to:

• 1. Always keep in mind that my actions here must be in alignment with the goals of Wikipedia.
• 2. In pursuit of 1., to use my powers of persuasion rather than insults to convince others that my arguments are the best arguments.
• 3. If 2. fails, to drop any particular issue if an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator gives me an explicit instruction to do so.

To prevent any wasted time on either side, then per CBAN and because of the reasons for the ban, this appeal is made on the following assumptions:

• Comments from involved and uninvolved users should be clearly separated. I would think a reasonable definition of involved here is if they opposed me in an AFD. If anyone disagrees with this, I expect them to clear up the issue before they comment.
• Comments shall be carefully scrutinised for personal attacks or other prohibited behaviour, especially misrepresentation. Interpreting facts is fine, inventing or selectively presenting facts in order to suit an interpretation is not.
• I will not agree to refrain from checking the edits of, or interacting with, Davey2010, as long as while doing so I am complying with the relevant rules of conduct. The area I could be of most use to Wikipedia is buses and bus transport, specifically in the UK, and Davey2010 is heavily active in this area, therefore I couldn't possibly hope to avoid him even if I was trying to (a quick check of 6 random articles in List of bus operators of the United Kingdom revealed he's previously editted 4 of them).

Hello, Some guidance to appeal your block. You can

1. use the ((admin help)) template to ask aid from an admin to post your block appeal to WP:AN.
2. use the ((helpme)) template seeking aid from an editor to post your block appeal to WP:AN
3. Contact Arbcom.

A normal unblock appeal using the unblock template will not work as this is a community sanctioned indefinite block. As such, no admin may unblock based on the reasoning in a standard unblock template. Blackmane (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the appeal to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ban_appeal. NE Ent 17:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal declined by the community

I have closed the community discussion as there is a consensus to decline your block appeal. You should read and follow the standard offer which requires that at least six months must be spent away from the English Wikipedia with no attempt at block evasion before an appeal will be considered or likely to succeed. As the community has declined this unblock request you are now considered banned by the community per the banning policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

For the record, I do not consider myself banned by the community in any way, shape or form, therefore you can probably guess whether or not I will be following any advice predicated on that falsity. I consider myself to have been lynched by a small number of users who demonstrably do not know the meaning of words like "collaboration" or "civil" conduct. To give some specific examples:

• I was accused by Kinu of stalking/harassing Davey2010. Anyone who takes a good look will see that the only thing I was doing was holding him to account for obviously false things he had said, and obviously wrong edits he was making, which were breaking//ignoring your own rules. The only way most of his edits look right, is if you don't take a close look at the rules, and you throw common sense right out of the window, and take everything he says at face value. Which is obviously not sensible at all, given his record. Since Davey2010 and everyone else declined to outline how these charges were mistaken, then I was obviously right. Indeed, the only response Davey2010 had to any of this was to either ignore me, insult me, or offer me a classic non-apology apology. Did Davey2010 get blocked for any of that? No, he did not.

• In rushing to lynch me, I was accused by Kinu of not assuming good faith that people were following BEFORE. Did anyone check whether that was true or not? Clearly not, because it isn't. I made direct accusations that BEFORE wasn't being followed, based on clear evidence that it wasn't. Since Davey2010 and everyone else declined to outline their research methods, which routinely failed to find sources that I did, then I was obviously right to make those accusations. Does Davey2010 get blocked for failing to follow BEFORE? No, he does not.

• Indeed, in his eagerness to get me banned, Kinu even claimed that there was "a previous block for what is essentially the same reason". Did anyone check whether that was true or not? Clearly not, because it isn't. Does Kinu get blocked for telling blatant lies? No, he does not.

• I was frequently accused by many of being NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Did anyone check whether that was true or not? Clearly not, because it isn't. I can find nothing in NOTHERE that says users who focus on trying to stop articles being deleted/merged for misguided or simply flat wrong reasons, are NOTHERE. Does Davey2010 get blocked for not writing articles, and only doing things like proposing articles for deletion without sufficient due diligence or subject knowledge? No, he does not.

• I was frequently misquoted and misrepresented by Stalwart111 and others in order to paint the right picture of my activities, and indeed BMK and Baseball Bugs contributions to the debate can only be described as trolling. Did they get blocked for that? No, they did not.

• I was told off by AmaryllisGardener for using Davey2010's affiliations as an ad hominem, and for deleting his messages without responding, yet when I pointed out that Davey2010 had done exactly the same to me, everything went silent. Did they get blocked for that? No, they did not.

• Sam Walton claimed I am not interested in discussion and only want to write argumentative walls of text. Perhaps if Sam Walton had bothered to read any of those posts, he might have actually understood what I was complaining about and responded accordingly, instead of making the various completely wrong assumptions he did do, and then whining when I further complained about their obvious unfitness to even be 'administrating' Wikipedia.

It should be noted that what connects Davey2010, Kinu, Stalwart111, AmaryllisGardener and Sam Walton is that their only interest in me was because I pointed out, using Wikipedia's own rules as well as basic common sense, that what they were doing was wrong. And they simply didn't like it. Instead of responding properly, instead of showing how I was wrong or mistaken, they simply just ignored me in the apparent hope I would go away, and when I didn't, they ganged up to get me banned.

Other than that obviously bad faith motive, from my perspective, here are the real reasons why I am banned:

• I'm clearly more intelligent than most people who consider themselves to be Wikipedia experts, therefore they feel embarrassed/threatened when I figure out that what they're claiming the rules say turns out to be false
• I know far more about buses than even the Wikipedia people writing about it do (and therefore they don't want people like me around, pointing out their mistakes)
• I have a low tolerance for hypocrisy/lying/trolling (whereas that seems to be a favourite activity of a lot of insiders here)
• I write long posts, because I like to be specific and bring facts and evidence to the table (and clearly, people of low intelligence who only want to say what they think, feel threatened by that)

Obviously, process issues helped. On Wikipedia, there is nothing here that even comes close to a process of neutral review. There is an astonishing level of collective deafness here amongst administrators. And you can't even really be bothered to separate neutral and involved views in ban discussions, even though your own rules say it should be done. That's how lazy and uninterested you are.

Note that in the rush to ban me, I noticed there were other editors who have noticed that Davey2010 is a problematic editor. Were these people listened to? No, they were not. The only reaction that generated was for myself to be accused of being one of them. Did anyone get blocked for that? Did BMK get blocked for turning that clear non-issue into a troll-fest? Of course not.

If you people really think it's OK that Davey2010 doesn't need to be monitored, if you think that amounts to 'stalking', fine. The only result will be a poorer encyclopedia. To give you just the latest example of his incompetence, do you really think someone truly interested in 'building an encyclopedia' would treat the attempted fixes of Fleet Buzz that User:Krystina Baker is trying to make should be just summarily deleted? More to the point, why is Davey2010 not proposing to delete that article, given that the only reliable independent secondary source speaking to notability it has is from Buses Magazine? Fleet Buzz has 7 less buses than NIBS, the company Davey2010 had wiped from Wikipedia just because he's too lazy and too stupid to believe that Buses Magazine would also cover them too (and too uninterested in 'building' Wikipedia to use a telephone to verify that fact for himself). Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your perception as to your status at Wikipedia is largely irrelevant. Whether you consider yourself banned doesn't alter the fact that you are. You'd also do well to pay attention to what Callanecc said when he implemented the ban, which is effectively you can appeal only after six months have elapsed. Thus, your comments here are unproductive and similar to your previous comments. I have therefore revoked your Talk page access. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Helsinki bus routes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not seem notable. Wikipedia is not a place for this kind of list

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]