![]() |
Hi Rowssusan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC) |
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. Mkdwtalk 23:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Rowssusan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I honestly don't care whether I'm unblocked or not, but I would ask for an uninvolved admin, and those who oversee admins, to review this blatantly inappropriate block by Mkdw. See this ANI discussion, started by Mkdw himself. It tells the entire story of what's going on here. Mkdw is either unable to see the huge conflict of interest in this block, or he simply doesn't care about it. He is not only involved to the max (see this discussion between he and I on his talk page prior to the ANI), but also made himself not only the arresting officer by being the reporter at ANI, but also the judge and the jury who closed the ANI discussion and issued the blocked unilaterally. This is clearly an abuse of his admin powers and therefore should warrant sanctions against him. I would also ask that the ANI discussion be reopened so that uninvolved editors can have the opportunity to comment. So far, the only comments were from three heavily-involved editors. Rowssusan (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I read the ANI, and believe that the subsequent block is justified. Further manifestations of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on your part will result in a longer block. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:55, 20 February 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.
Rowssusan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If you actually believe that it's even close to appropriate for an administrator to start and close his own ANI report on someone, and then issue a block to that person, then you clearly have no ability to neutrally judge this matter. And this puts aside the fact that the blocking admin's actions were clearly prompted by a disagreement with me on his talk page, and that he and his admin colleague provided zero diffs that support their repeated claims of personal attacks and edit warring. I want someone who oversees administrators to review this matter to determine if this is a case of conflict of interest and an abuse of admin powers. If you believe the Mkdw did nothing wrong, then you won't be worried about letting those above you take a look at what happened here. Rowssusan (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I should also add that continuing your personal attacks on the blocking admin, below, and making accusations about their motives is another sign that you really don't get what the problem is here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 21 February 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.
Yes, "fairly applied" with zero diffs that support the allegations. Just lots of babbling rhetoric. Great logic there, Boing! Did I violate 3RR or make personal attacks (prior to this block)?? After all, those were the allegations at ANI. Where's the god damn proof? There is none. Let's see if any admin will be the first one with enough guts to actually provide proof with quotes and diffs, or admit that I'm right. Yeah, right. You all spout your crap, but ignore the total lack of evidence. Most of you admins are just a little gang of coward bullies who collude to protect each other no matter what, especially against editors who don't have a lot of experience. The really experienced, hostile editors who violate the rules all the time, with far more egregious behavior than mine, scare the fuck out of you admins because most of you are scared to death to even take them on. The police call what you admins do to protect each other the blue code, or the blue wall of silence. What do you admins call it? It's actually worse than the blue code because most of you hide anonymously behind your phony usernames and use your neato tools as weapons. It's like using a knife or a bat in a fight against an unarmed person. You go on your little power trips and act as judge and jury so you can "win" and feel better about yourselves. But if you had to face these people you block so easily in person, you would probably end up cowering in a corner and crying like little babies. You're lucky you're only in the fantasy world of Wikipedia because if you had to present a real case with real evidence, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom with your tails between your legs. Rowssusan (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
OhNoitsJamie, I certainly hope your decision to ignore Mkdw's clearly inappopriate actions have nothing to do with your own "conviction" for abusing your admin powers ("Ohnoitsjamie's blocking of the IP editor they edit-warred with is a clear abuse of administrator tools"). Rowssusan (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Allegation #1: "they accuse other editors of personal attacks when there was nothing that could reasonably be regarded as a personal attack" (zero quotes or diffs provided)
Now let's take a look at the facts, using actual proof (quotes and diffs). Let's see if the claim that "there was nothing that could reasonably be regarded as a personal attack" is true:
Allegation #2: "attacking other editors all the time" (zero quotes or diffs provided)
Allegation #3: "We are dealing with an editor who cannot act in a collaborative and civil way with other editors"
The above shows that making allegations and spouting rhetoric is very easy when one doesn't provide any proof to back it up. Rowssusan (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. Mkdwtalk 19:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)(block log • active blocks • global blocks • • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Hello, Rowssusan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)