User talk:84.127.80.114

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


February 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Debian. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
In addition, please note that Wikipedia is not the place to carry out a campaign, or to try to expose or publicise what you regard as wrongs that need to be righted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


  • Also, please make sure that references you give (a) actually do support the statements in the article that they are supposed to reference, and (b) are from reliable sources: the unsubstantiated opinion of a person writing in a forum or similar place is not normally a reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could take a look at the Debian Talk page, "7 Debian private practices and Debian Women activities" section, and tell me if your previous notices still apply. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly they do: why did you think they might no? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you could show that you have read the talk page.
  • Could you tell me why do you think I have not tried to reach a consensus?
  • Why do you think I am the one not using the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes?
  • Did you see my edit summaries (Please see the Talk page/use it/User refused to talk)?
  • If you believe I am carrying out a campaign, why do you think so?
  • Since the references notice still applies, which ones do not support the presented statements or are not reliable?
  • What check was done to make sure mthinkcpp's claim about my alleged vandalism accusations to several users is true?
  • What check was done to make sure the other part was behaving correctly? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The main substance of the message I sent you was about edit warring. Whether you were edit warring or not depends only on whether you were repeatedly reverting edits, not on other issues, such as what other editors were doing, whether the edits you were making were justified, whether or not you have made accusations of vandalism, etc etc. I also mentioned the need for care over use of sources, and the use of Wikipedia to carry out a campaign. Likewise, neither of those is remotely affected by the other, unrelated, issues which you mention.
Perhaps the notice about edit warring which I incorporated in my message could somehow be rephrased to emphasise even more than it does the point Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. It gives advice on how to deal with disagreements, but it does not say "...and as long as you follow the recommended steps to try to reach agreement, it is OK to edit war", but for some reason many editors read it that way, as you appear to have done.
It seems to me that any uninvolved third party reading your edits both to the article and to the talk page would see them, as I did, as being made by someone who believes that there are things wrong with the way things are handled within the Debian community, and who is trying to use Wikipedia to publicly expose what is going on. If that is not what you intended, then you should carefully re-read what you have written, and try to see how it would look to an outsider, as you have inadvertently given a highly misleading impression. If, on the other hand, that is indeed what you intended, then that is what I meant by using Wikipedia to carry out a campaign.
I will give you just one example of adding content that is not supported by the reference you cited for it. In this edit you wrote, among other things, "Debian makes many non-security decisions not available to the public, via debian-private". As a reference you cited https://lists.debian.org/debian-private/. However, that page makes no mention whatever of "non-security decisions", let alone stating that "many" of them are made via debian-private. A source cited as a reference needs to actually state the fact which it is cited to support, not merely mention something related, as a basis for a Wikipedia editor adding further commentary which is not mentioned in the source.
Have the issues you have been repeatedly trying to air in the article been given substantial coverage in significant independent sources, such as major newspapers, or books? If so, then please give citations to such sources. An encyclopaedia does not contain detailed accounts of internal disagreements within an organisation, documented only in internal documents. For example, I don't expect the article Microsoft to contain details of internal memos discussing how the company organises its management, and there is no reason why Debian should be treated differently.
No, I will not "show that [I] have read the talk page". I have, and you may make your own choice as to whether to believe me or not. In any case, it is of limited relevance, since the issues that I have mentioned in my attempt to help you better understand why your editing is not considered acceptable are all to be seen in your editing of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate if JamesBWatson could explain a bit more what is an edit war, given that mthinkcpp made these changes. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring (First block)[edit]

Please read my warning at the edit warring noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for reverting at Debian after warning at WP:AN3. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

84.127.80.114 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I reverted the changes without agreement and being discussed. I did not add any of my proposed changes even though consensus was reached, as explained in [1]. I am unable to use the Debian talk page. If I cannot make even those changes in the article, then say so. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline because this block has expired -- Atama 18:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

I cannot even talk to Bbb23. If Bbb23 is right about the edit warring resolution, then these changes should be made to the first paragraph of the edit war article:

  • Remove: rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.
  • Add: it is no defense to say "but I tried to resolve the disagreement by discussion and the other users refused to discuss, so I wasn't edit warring". 84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) That's still no excuse not to use the article's talk page. As DangerousPanda once said, "We have a WP:BRD process...not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDRDDRRRRDDRRRDDRRRR". Epicgenius (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Could Epicgenius clarify his previous statement? I am trying to assume good faith but it looks like Epicgenius is implying I am the one that is not using the article's talk page.
Of course, I cannot leave him a Talkback message. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
If you're referring to me, no need, I'm aware of your comments. I have nothing to say at this juncture. If you're talking about Epicgenius, this template should notify them through the notification system, although I would be surprised if your talk page isn't on their watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I got the ping. I'm retracting my previous statement, as it looks like you did use the talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If it is true that people are being notified of my comments, then let me use the Debian talk page. Dsimic has answered my assistance request. I am unable to reply. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, then just wait until the block expires, and stay out of reverting the edits; anyway, sometimes it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It's strange that only a few editors were willing to discuss the whole thing on Talk:Debian; however, it's not my call to draw any conclusions here or there. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand Dsimic's last revert. I simply reverted to the way things were before. About the material, we all agree that "something" happens with Debian developers. The Debian constitution says "expel existing Developers", the neutral expression is "expel" not "forcefully dismiss". I am blocked, the neutral expression is "blocked" not "forcefully invited to reconsider their attitude". I did not win, nor lose any debate; natural death did not happen. I cannot drop a stick I do not have. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Please check out these two edits, which toned down the language. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

/* User:Mthinkcpp and Debian edit war */ This is now at DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Debian).[edit]

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

Regarding Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Debian, at DRN we only discuss article content, never user conduct. In other words, do not talk about other editors.

Would you do me a favor and edit your opening comments so that the focus is on the content that there was an edit war over, not on edit warring? It has been my experience that if we can solve the content dispute that solves any conduct issues as well. thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments about DRN case Debian[edit]

Answering this, Guy Macon still wants to continue with the confusion. That last advice "Make a persuasive argument and ..." [2] was obviously not given to me, although the advice would apply in a normal situation but is totally useless in this one. These questions were not answered. It is true that I am not willing to accept the answers given so far, because there has been no discussion and I am not going to drop any stick without debate. About following advice, I am the one that has followed Guy Macon's advice.

Does Guy Macon want to discuss? The Debian talk page is waiting. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You have your answer. It is at User talk:GorillaWarfare#Arbitration case request assistance. I am not going to waste any further time on this, so you might as well stop asking. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I thank Guy Macon for proving me right. Feel free to discuss article content any time. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request: Debian[edit]

{{Help me}} I request that one registered user files a request for arbitration on my behalf. The request is the section "Debian" below. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate if an administrator could stand by Ed and GorillaWarfare's words.[3][4] 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Moved Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 22:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have informed the clerks (who were indeed so quick to act on this they edit conflicted me ;)) GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined[edit]

The arbitration request involving you (Debian) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This is what I asked for.[5] According to Seraphimblade, "I see no indication that normal dispute resolution processes have failed to handle this matter."[6] despite:[7]
  • A failed DRN case.
  • The conclusion from Guy Macon: further discussion is unlikely to help.
  • My unanswered questions: Why are we still discussing the old changes? Why do not we discuss the last proposal? Are not we supposed to move forward?
I acknowledge Guy Macon's efforts to move the debate away from article content and to repeat that "consensus" is against me,[8] considering the user was not going to waste any further time.[9]
I wonder what Floquenbeam's doubts are about "good faith" content dispute and what does the arbitrator mean by disruption. I still would like someone to use the article talk page. Getting opinions from outside editors, is not that a request for comment?
I do not really understand LFaraone's recusal, since no one has requested it. Anyway, it is his decision.
The Committee has spoken and proved what had to be proved. I do not have to agree, just to cooperate. So, I must file RfCs without initial discussion. Is there any limit about the number of simultaneous requests I can file? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Guy Macon thinks I am trolling.[10] Of course, everyone's contributions speak by themselves. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
On second thought, I should answer GorillaWarfare's comment.[11] I believe that the Wikipedia community can work to create unbiased articles on these subjects (Debian, Ubuntu...), despite the operating system used on the Wikimedia servers, too. The Arbitration Committee intervention was very important. I did not ask the Committee to settle a content dispute among editors,[12] but to make the content dispute resolution possible. I have always asked for discussion.[13][14][15][16]
Arbitrators are affected by this issue. Why would an arbitrator state that some content is not appropriate without being asked about content?[17] The problem exists and it is serious. Nevertheless, I believe that Wikipedia can overcome that problem. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Enough (Second block)[edit]

I have blocked you for a week to give everyone some time off from your agitations. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

84.127.80.114 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

With a horse alive and kicking, an administrator has taken the stick from my cold blocked hands. Despite being advised to file an RfC, as I explained, Guy Macon and friends have disrupted the RfC. In the last event, Guy Macon stated a made-up fact about what "involved" means in Wikipedia. I challenged that fact. The user was unable to prove it. Ironically, then I got a block threat from an involved administrator. I complained and got blocked. As I said, my previous block has been used as an excuse for a longer period. Guy Macon has instructed to close the RfC. The RfC has been sabotaged. I have been blocked again for violations I did not commit. Any administrator could end this block. All arbitrators are administrators.[18] Arbitrators are aware. Is not this a matter for the Arbitration Committee yet? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see a lot of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE in your recent edit history. If it continues after this block expires, the next block will be much longer. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

In case anyone might be minded to unblock the relevant discussion is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threat from User:Salix alba in RfC. Various combinations of WP:NOTHERE, WP:POINT, on Talk:Debian and Talk:Ukraine and rounded up with a WP:BOOMERANG and the odd WP:SNOW.--Salix alba (talk): 06:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
A relevant discussion which I have been unable to reply. I challenge the involved administrator, that did not answer my question in the RfC, to provide me one diff, even one of those provided by Iryna Harpy that have nothing to do with Debian. I will refute it. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Ohnoitsjamie removed the format of my unblock reason to make it hard to read. The unblock reason was: (84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC))

With a horse alive and kicking, an administrator has taken the stick from my cold blocked hands.
Despite being advised to file an RfC, as I explained, Guy Macon and friends have disrupted the RfC.
In the last event, Guy Macon stated a made-up fact about what "involved" means in Wikipedia. I challenged that fact. The user was unable to prove it. Ironically, then I got a block threat from an involved administrator. I complained and got blocked. As I said, my previous block has been used as an excuse for a longer period.
Guy Macon has instructed to close the RfC. The RfC has been sabotaged.
I have been blocked again for violations I did not commit. Any administrator could end this block.
All arbitrators are administrators.[19] Arbitrators are aware. Is not this a matter for the Arbitration Committee yet?
84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie: the next block will be much longer.

Really? So this administrator wants to silence me and prevent whatever fair administrator that may exist in Wikipedia to unblock me. OhNoitsJamie claims WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE, yet the administrator cannot provide a single diff. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Second unblock request (for the Second block)[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

84.127.80.114 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

My original unblock reason still applies.[20]. I was blocked for complaining about a block threat from an involved administrator. The unblock request has been declined by OhNoitsJamie without reason, invoking policy without providing an actual violation. Is not there a single fair administrator in the whole Wikipedia? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have edited disruptively, and persistently fought against clear consensus. You repeatedly deny facts which are visible to anyone who looks, and you misrepresent the facts. Far from addressing the issues concerning your editing, you try to blame everyone but yourself. Far from indicating that after the end of this block you will edit differently, you have made it perfectly clear that your intention is to continue in exactly the same way. Under the circumstances, the only fact about this block that might reasonably be reconsidered is that it is for so short a time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

You are really not getting it are you? Like any institution there are rules and conventions of how to behave and the type of things which go into wikipedia. Wikipedia:Five pillars nicely sum things up. Only those who largely abide by those rules are allowed to participate.

You actions are frequently on the wrong side of these rules:

  1. The central tenet of the RFC failed the content guidelines WP:NOTABILITY WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT (7 independent people came to the same conclusion)
  2. Your behaviour using multiple talk pages trying to get admin and arbitrators involved breaks many of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.
  3. There are many other guidelines you fall foul of. You focus on one small issue looks like WP:POV being here to push one small point. You have a tendency to protest every action, this is a form of disruptive editing and wins you no friends.
"Is not there a single fair administrator in the whole Wikipedia?"

We are actually being fair. We are giving you a week to read and familiarise yourself with the guidelines and policies. If after reading those articles you amend your behaviour, cease disruptive editing and help to build the encyclopaedia then you will be allowed to continue editing. If, on the other hand you resume your current behaviour it will not be long before you are blocked again. This is not a threat, it is warning.--Salix alba (talk): 21:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a single diff yet. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Your still not getting it! Asking for diffs fail WP:BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Do you want your last remaining privilege to be removed? --Salix alba (talk): 05:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


To the above I would add that writing things like
"Guy Macon has instructed to close the RfC. The RfC has been sabotaged."[21]
Violates WP:NPA. There is nothing wrong with requesting a WP:SNOW close. Admittedly, being labeled a saboteur doesn't bother me much -- I have been around long enough that a few personal attacks don't upset me -- but that is the kind of behavior that, if we were to tolerate it, would drive away new contributors who do want to improve the encyclopedia. In my opinion, 84.127.80.114 should be put on a short leash as far as personal attacks are concerned, especially when interacting with new Wikipedia users.
There is some humor in this. It is nice to know that I have such control over Wikipedia administrators (and even over the Arbitration Committee!)[22] Who knew? I promise to Use My Power For Good...
Finally, I would like to address certain individuals claiming to be from the Debian Project who have emailed me; I have no interest in the details of internal Debian politics, and I have been archiving such emails without reading past the first few lines. The whole thing is rather boring and I don't know or care whether you are who you say you are or whether what you write us true. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks like Guy Macon thinks there is a chance that I could be unblocked. However, I will not start repeating all previous Guy Macon's conduct issues. The user likes to keep the confusion. There is nothing wrong with instructing to close a RfC. The wrong is on the administrator that blocked me and closed the RfC.
I stand by my words. They are referred in this talk page.[23] Guy Macon has the power of persuasion.
Finally, I would like to address certain individuals claiming to be from the Wikipedia Foundation who have emailed me: any proof about such emails? I would like to read them. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It isn't my decision to make, but yes, I do think that you can be unblocked. If you indicate that you understand what you are blocked for, that you will not do it again, and that you intend to make productive contributions instead, I will recommend an immediate unblock per WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE and WP:ROPE. I am going to explain exactly what, in my opinion, you need to do to make it likely that you be unblocked. This is the same behavioral standard that you will need to comply with in order to not be reblocked with a much longer duration, and if you do get reblocked, this is the same behavioral standard that you will need to comply with in order to get the new block lifted early.
First, you need to stop fighting. Second, you need to accept the fact that sometimes the consensus is going to go against you. Third, you need to stop rejecting the advice of experienced editors and especially administrators. Finally, you need to stop blaming everyone but yourself and take personal responsibility for the consequences of your behavior.
As a developer, you have no doubt ran into situations where suddenly several different unrelated chunks of code start failing in the same way. What do you do when that happens? You look for the common factor. Is there a library that they all call? Were they all recompiled with a different version of the compiler? do they all access the same resource? What is the common factor?
In like manner you can troubleshoot the difficulties that you are experiencing with a bunch of different Wikipedia editors and administrators who don't know each other. All of those other Wikipedia editors and administrators have no problem getting along with most other editors. There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!". You are the common factor.
Nobody wins if you keep on the path you are on and get blocked for a week, then several months, then years. Wikipedia really needs editors with technical expertise, and it is a lot easier to start with someone who is smart and teach them to be nice than it is to start with someone who is nice and teach them to be smart.
Let me sweeten the deal for you. If you stop violating Wikipedia's behavioral standards and become a productive member of our community, I will personally contact the appropriate members of the Debian community and suggest that they try Wikipedia's way of dealing with disruptive individuals -- a series of blocks with increasing durations -- and that they offer to anyone who has been expelled an amnesty and a chance to rejoin the Debian community under the new system. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Too long; didn't read (I did actually). No emails either.
When people tell me WP:NOTHERE, that I am not here to build an encyclopedia, is that an order? I will leave willingly only if the Wikimedia Foundation says so or the Arbitration Committee. The only way for a bunch of administrators abusing their power to prevent me from improving the Debian article is by force.
I have proved many facts about Wikipedia so far. When this block expires, if I have the chance, I will demonstrate that I am here to build an encyclopedia too.
I do not care what Guy Macon does with the Debian community. I am not here to change Debian in any way. Whatever influence Debian has over Wikipedia should not prevent Wikipedia becoming unbiased. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
84.127.80.114, I am unwatching this page. Please stop mentioning my name in your comments. I wish to totally disengage from you. This is a reasonable request, and if you are not willing to disengage voluntarily, I will request an interaction ban.
Yes, I do realize that once before I said that I wasn't going to reply to you, but I didn't realize at that time that you would continue accusing me of various misdeeds, adding a link every time so that it would appear in my notifications. All I am asking at this point is that you leave me alone, and I will in turn leave you alone. Forget that I ever existed. I no longer want to have anything to do with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I mention users when necessary. This means that I will mention the user whenever I have to talk about that user. It is not my intention to cause unwanted notifications. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like JamesBWatson, the uninvolved[24][25] administrator that is not able to provide a diff either, removed the format of my unblock reason too. The unblock reason was: (84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

My original unblock reason still applies.[26].
I was blocked for complaining about a block threat from an involved administrator.
The unblock request has been declined by OhNoitsJamie without reason, invoking policy without providing an actual violation.
Is not there a single fair administrator in the whole Wikipedia?
84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Third unblock request (for the Second block)[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

84.127.80.114 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

My original unblock reasons still apply.[27][28] I was blocked for complaining about a block threat from an involved administrator. The first unblock request has been declined by OhNoitsJamie without reason, invoking policy without providing an actual violation. The second unblock request has been declined by JamesBWatson, claiming: * disruptive edits without naming one. * clear consensus without pointing to actual content violation. WP:DONTLIKE is not consensus. * denying facts visible to anyone without a diff. * misrepresent the facts without mentioning a single fact. Will the members of the Arbitration Committee allow these administrators to silence me permanently? As long as I am blocked, I will continue to ask to be unblocked. I am here to improve an article. Administrators just want to hide their wrongs. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Totally worth it.[29][30]

The RfC has failed. It is not necessary to publish an analysis. I could still file a request for mediation but conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5 are unlikely to be deemed satisfied; condition 8 certainly is not.

Although the material is fine, I was told that "consensus" is against me. I knew it already. The current problem is that "consensus" is being enforced against me. Requesting formal mediation will be a new excuse for a longer block.

Therefore, having exhausted all available avenues in dispute resolution, it is nomination time. I could not prepare the article with the help of the regular editors. Thus, I will have to do all the work by myself.

With this edit, I prove that I am the one who wants a good article for an encyclopedia. From this point on, either Debian becomes a good article or I get blocked finally. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrators Noticeboard Incident[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Debian_.28IP_84.127.80.114.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthinkcpp (talkcontribs) 14:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

[31] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Incident is archived. I had better remain silent until the review of Debian starts. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 23 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Debian[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)