User talk:Tamsier

r

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent disruptive editing, including harassment, edit warring, incivility, and a general battleground mentality. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This 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).

Tamsier (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like this decision to be reviewed by another independent Administrator. I think JamesBWatson should have decleared that him and I go a long way and there is a conflict of interest. Lets not go any further than that shall we? How can I be found for disruption when I have been providing sources to unsourced articles as well as images to article in order to improve them? Structuring and sourcing articles I have never edited? How can I be found for harrasement, edit warring, civility etc where these are the very actions of the editor and I've reported them several times yet nothing was done against them. Who is editing warring? Have a look at Serer people article you will see the kinds of games being played. Never mind the fact that, I have never ever stalked this editor but it is the other way round and I have reported them couple of times yet nothing was done about them. Did James decleared that he has a conflict of interest against seeing me blocked? Take a look at my contributitions to articles and take a look at Halaqah then tell me which one is more productive and who is being disruptive, etc. Tamsier (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In short: No. There are some serious article ownership issues evident in your contributions and I don't think you actually understand that what you are doing is disruptive to the article and to the project. If you don't agree with James that this is incivil then, in all honesty, there is nothing more to say to you. — Joseph Fox 16:43, 18 November 2011 (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.

Ownership and warning disruptive editors / vandals are totally different.

Show me one piece of evidence where I have stated that I owned any article I have edited? This has nothing to do with ownership but trying to warn editors who are vandalising or disrupting articles. There is a difference between the two. Everything I have said about the editor in question can be easily verified by looking at the relevant articles, diffs and their contribution history over the past two months. In deed when I reported this very editor to Administrators nothing was done about them. So do some Administrators pick and choose whom they dish out sanctions to? I edit with integrity and do not go around trying to destroy articles on placing inappropriate tags on them which cannot be said for the editor in question and their contribution history provide ample evidence to substantiate that fact. I have nothing else to say to you. Tamsier (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)