User talk:Orestes1984

User	Talk	Contributions	Boxes	Sandbox

January 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

You were asked three times to stay away from Hilo's talk page, not only by them, but also by at least two uninvolved users. Every time you response was to post immediately at their talk page. After you have been warned that you could be blocked, your response was that you basically can do whatever you want. Whereas Hilo's behavior is childish, it does not really excuse your own disruprive editing. Therefore I had to block you for 12 hours. Please stay away from their talk page when the block expires, unless posting there is absolutely necessary (for example informing them of an ANI thread).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2014 (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).

Orestes1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

repeated childish behaviour and provocation as well as discussion of issues related to soccer in Australia and other articles on the non-appropriate talk pages. :: I'm sorry Ymblanter I simply cannot agree that I was stating that I could do whatever I like, I respect administrators decisions here, unlike HiLo48 who has had tirade after tirade about administrators. I simply don't respect users who believe that they can act as an authority to themselves.

This user is contravening an iban AND discussing matters in an inappropriate talk page. This is not the first time this has occurred, Hilo48 has used talk:soccer in Australia to attempt to hold a consensus over names for association football as seen here through the use of meat puppetry. His filibustering can be seen, here, and here, of my otherwise good faith edits.

Hilo48 should have received an editing ban a long time ago. My specific response was for uninvolved third parties to remove themselves from the discussion unless they had something of worth to contribute. My response was not "I can do whatever I like" at all, it was a reminder, after having been repeatedly through this with Hilo48 that he is not in a position of authority neither are those users which support him. HiLo48 would appear to have certain users and perhaps admins, wrapped around his finger and my biggest ongoing complaint about this bar none is simply the fact that this is allowed to happen. We have administrators for a reason, and to simply allow users to act as if they are an authority here that can hand out bans or make judgement calls is ridiculous.

HiLo48 consistently places himself above other users to both bully them and filibuster discussion on topics such as soccer in Australia for me to get an infraction because of this is nonsensical. HiLo48 believes he is a power to himself, I am just reminding him and his supporters that this is not the case at all.

Despite my being caught up in what I believe is a just cause (others may see it otherwise) HiLo48 needs a solid reminder that he is simply not an authority to himself and neither are his supporters. By blocking me you've done nothing but add fuel to the fire and given credence to the assumption HiLo48 and his supporters have some sort of authority here to "do whatever they like." this is ridiculous.

I have been told to "fuck off," "Piss off," repeatedly been called a "moron" and incompetent HiLo48 will not discuss with soccer editors as he believes they are all incompetent morons and yet has not been sanctioned once because of his recent language. You're right HiLo48 is childish, so do something about it rather than sanctioning me... --Orestes1984 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: block has expired. Favonian (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2014 (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.

I am involved and can not block HiLo48, I suggest that you open a RFC/U about their behavior, ANI is not going to help.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

-

I would like to take the ongoing issue on Talk:Soccer in Australia to an administrator. HiLo cannot be apart of the discussion, he is biased beyond belief and has been dragging-on the discussion for far too long. I would like this solved but do not know the procedure to seek administrator assistance.--2nyte (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

ani notice

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack NE Ent 14:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Orestes, consider this your only warning. You need to stop these personal attacks; if you can't discuss things, even if that discussion drags on and on, without resorting to such insults as you made here, you should probably take your own advice and not waste any more time on the matter. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Orestes, I closed the AN/I complaint against you without further action, but I warn you too that you will get a block if you carry on like this. Why not avoid the Australian sport naming discussions for a week or two? I formally request that you stay away from there until 3 March. Can you do that for me? When you return I would like you to be respectful and calm at all times. I will be warning other editors too. --John (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are asking me to avoid a loaded discussion that involves myself the answer is no I will not and that's as politely as I will put any comments asking me to refrain from entering discussions that involve myself. On the other side of this, I will quite happily avoid any other interactions with a user who I believe is doing nothing other than gaming the system. --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violating a request to stay off of someone's talk page. 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.  Drmies (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• For someone who wanted to have nothing to do with a certain editor you left a lot of messages on their talk page, despite being asked at least twice to not post there any more. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• You are a disgrace as an administrator and are clearly taking sides in this discussion Drmies. If I am pinged it puts me in the situation that asks for a response, this is nothing more than Wikipedia:Gaming the system. You are a disgrace and this system is a laughing stock --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Orestes1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Simply responding to a ping request for comment does not deserve a 72hour block Orestes1984 (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Simply responding to a ping request for comment does not deserve a 72hour block [[User:Orestes1984|Orestes1984]] ([[User talk:Orestes1984#top|talk]]) 03:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Simply responding to a ping request for comment does not deserve a 72hour block [[User:Orestes1984|Orestes1984]] ([[User talk:Orestes1984#top|talk]]) 03:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Simply responding to a ping request for comment does not deserve a 72hour block [[User:Orestes1984|Orestes1984]] ([[User talk:Orestes1984#top|talk]]) 03:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}