User talk:68.50.128.91

April 2013

No, I do not want. My business was to warn you that next revert on the talk page will result in blocking your IP. I am at this point not really interested in the rest of the story. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you do not want to follow proper procedure, then refrain from edit warring. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You stated that the issue between us was closed. Then, after that, without re-opening dialogue, you erroneously blocked me from editing my talk page, even after contradicting Wiki policy was pointed out to you. Therefore, any further actions by you regarding me will be considered harassment. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Please note that the next attemp to hide the warnings you received before getting blocked [1] will most likely result in the revokation of your talk page access. Thank you for understanding. Also please stop calling "trolling" what is not trolling.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be pretty clear: In particular, if you remove this warning I just gave you your talk access will be removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page access removed as promised for the continuous removal of warnings. Since next time you are likely to be blocked for 6 months (given that your Wikipedia contribution in the last couple of months s net negative), you might finally want to study policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, per WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED, edtiors are fully permitted to clear their own talk pages except for a few items such as declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockputterty notices, speedy deletion tages while the discussion is in progress, and a couple others. Therefore, the removal of this warning and this warning by IP 68 was permitted. However, s/he cannot remove the active block notice or the currently-undecided unblock request if it's declined. (The unblock request may be removed if it's accepted.) All previous block notices (for expried blocks) may also be removed. I don't mean any disrespect, but this is a very important guideline of which you should be aware. Thanks. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you are right. Though the IP removed the messages called them "trolling" (for which they could have their block extended), it is indeed better if I reinstate the talk access and let a admin who is going to review the third unblock request to take the access off to prevent a non-stop unblock request show.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ymblanter. Again, I apologize for stepping on your toes but I felt it was important for you to know. I realize that this talk page reveals an apparently ugly history. And I do understand your point about the "trolling" comment, but that of course is a separate issue. Btw, I just noticed that another admin, Orangemike, posted a comment on April 6 (above) about editors being allowed to clear their own talk pages. Thanks again for your understanding. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, 76.189.109.155, for reversing Ymblanter's error. It's a shame that some admins don't familiarize themselves with Wiki policy, even when it is pointed out to them. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no "admin food chain" - any unblock request that is not GAB-compliant will be declined; any that include any trashing of others will too, and these are useless as well. Any posts specifically related to the block, AND comments as per the requirements for admin accountability cannot be removed while the editor is still blocked. Nobody is ever going to be blocked for a single reference to being a troll, so calls for tit-for-tat justice are ridiculous. Don't want to be called a troll? Don't do behaviours that lead to it. Don't want to be called an edit-warrior? Don't edit war. Don't want to be called a vandal? Don't be one. Easy-peasy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins,WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED are very clear on this. Therefore, based on everything I've read and heard, you are completely wrong when you say, "Any posts specifically related to the block, AND comments as per the requirements for admin accountability cannot be removed while the editor is still blocked." Please provide evidence to support that claim. You're the first admin I've ever heard deny the legitimacy of WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED. If an editor removes a warning, then it's considered acknowledgement of its receipt. And if an admin wants to see any prior content that was on the talk page, they can always look at the history log. But the editor has no obligation to keep anything on their talk page, aside from the limited exceptions listed in WP:REMOVED. So IP 68 is not allowed to remove the block notice for the current block, or any denied block notices for the current block, but they are allowed to remove the ones for the previous/expired block. The rest of your comment above has nothing to do with with an editor's right to clear their own talk page. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and Bwilkins, what I mean by "admin food chain" is higher-up admins who have been admins longer/have bothered to learn Wiki policy; i.e. the opposite of you, as pointed out by 76.189.109.155. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IP 68, I want to clarify something. Please understand that my posts here and at AN/I are not intended as an effort to defend you, but rather to defend every editor's ability to remove content from their own talk pages, as long as they do not violate the exceptions articulated in WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED. I would suggest that you avoid making any more inappropriate comments, such as this one, which can easily be perceived as being uncivil or even personal attacks. And for the record, talk page access is not a right, nor is clearing one's own talk page, if any policies, guidelines, or widely-accepted standards of behavior are being violated. An administrator has the authority and right to revoke someone's talk page access if they feel a line has been crossed. And you have the right to appeal that decision (within limits). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And I appreciate you defending that right for everyone, which, naturally, would also include me, as I have said before above. And "as no policies, guidelines, nor widely-accepted standards of behavior are being violated here," I will continue to exercise my right to edit my talk page. I would say, having borne the brunt of being labeled a "troll" by more than one admin (mostly because I have an IP number and not an account, something I would hope you would empathize with), and because I am advocating for making edits they are personally in disagreement with, it would be a stretch to say that stating that someone doesn't have appropriate knowledge of Wiki policy, when that person has demonstrated on this very talk page to be in error (by you, actually), is "inappropriate." Any perception that stating so is uncivil or a personal attack would be an error on their part. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing more important for an editor than their reputation. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate by saying what you are specifically referring to? 68.50.128.91 (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

To put it simply, it doesn't matter if you are absolutely correct in every discussion in which you're involved if other editors don't like or respect you. Often times, it's not about what someone says, but rather how they say it. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about you specifically, but about any editor. I hope that helps. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying. But I will note that I have been treated with much incivility posting as an IP than when I posted with an account.

Also, it's been from day one of others not respecting me without even knowing me, when I was perfectly polite. This is the tail end of a long process. I've been the bigger person for most of this, but there's only so much one can take before frustration sits in. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Each of us can only control our own actions. We have no control over the actions of others. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Addressing your point above: The policy you linked above states "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction" Bwilkins is utterly right that editors can't remove anything relating to the block while they are blocked. This has always included discussions about the behavior or the block. If he wants to talk about roses or his trip to Florida, then remove that later, that is fine, but anything block related is typically kept on the talk page to assist administrators by having a complete record. To say it only includes words inside the orange boxes is kind of silly. The policy page doesn't say that ONLY templates must kept, only that a number of important matters may not be removed, including the block templates. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I obviously know fully what the policies (plural) say, as you can see by my prior comments above. Repsectfully, though, I disagree with your interpretation. And so do the overwhelming majority of very experienced editors and other administrators, based on what I've read in prior AN/I discussions on this topic. Your comment, "anything block related is typically kept on the talk page to assist administrators by having a complete record" is, for lack of a better term, nonsense. "Anything"? The "complete record," as you call it, is always available in the revision history log. It is not an editor's responsiblity to assist or make things convenient for an administrator, or anyone else. If an admin wants to know any information regarding a block, then they should do their homework and check the log. Or, they can simply just contact the blocking admin to see if there's anything that should be known, which is what they should be doing anyway. For the record, the key word in "notice regarding an active sanction" is notice. A notice is not the same as a general comment. So Bwilkins in my humble opinion is not, as you claim, "utterly right" at all. I'm sorry, but just because you believe that does not make it a fact. And before the AN/I that I initiated was prematurely closed after only a few hours, admin Jayron32 posted this comment in which he agreed with me. And he also pointed out that saying admins need a "complete record" is invalid. Guy Macon also commented in the AN/I about Bwilkins' apparent "direct contradiction" of the policy. I'm confident that if that AN/I discussion had remained open, many others would have said the same thing, based on the previous AN/I discussions on this topic. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with 76.189.109.155. "Notice" =/= "additional commentary," no matter how germane. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"There are only four types of messages that a user should not remove: declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry notices, miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is still in progress) and shared IP header templates for unregistered editors." (WP:Don't Restore Removed Comments) Seems pretty clear to me. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, please show proof for your above claim, which says, "editors can't remove anything relating to the block while they are blocked. This has always included discussions about the behavior or the block" (emphasis added). I will be happy to review any relevant diffs or links that you provide. And if WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED were intended to mean that an editor cannot remove anything related to a block, why don't the policies simply say that? Obviously, it would make things very simple and unambiguous. Think about it. There's a reason it does not say that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 13:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Debating you serves no purpose, you can start a discussion on it at an appropriate venue if you choose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

He already tried @ ANI and was thumped like a narc at a biker rally (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I suggest that you behave like an admin should and treat others with civility. Your comment is completely out of line. And, for the record, its implication is completely inaccurate. As you well know, the AN/I discussion was closed after only a few hours by one of your fellow admins (who happened to be involved in IP 68's block) even though the other participating editors, including admin Jayron32, agreed with me. In any case, your "thumped like a narc at a biker rally" comment is very telling. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, this isn't a debate, it's a discussion. And it's interesting that you - an admin, no less - believes that discussion "serves no purpose". I should remind you that it is you who re-started this discussion today, not me, so it's rather astounding that you now want to stop talking about it after I've replied to you with my points and asked you to provide proof of you claims. I can only assume now that you have no proof. I'll also remind you that I did in fact start a discussion at the appropriate venue and, as you know, it was prematurely shut down. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

IP 68, if you're going to quote or paraphrase a policy, please be sure to link to the policy so that other edtiors will know exactly where you got it from. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I will source it above. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually, though, this issue isn't about what the policies say, but rather what they mean. I asked the editor/admin (Dennis Brown) for proof of his claims, but unfortunately he appears to have chosen not to provide any, nor to even continue his participation in this discussion. As one editor pointed out in the AN/I discussion, what's being claimed appears to completely contradict the policy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I find it perplexing that you said to me (above), "Debating you serves no purpose, you can start a discussion on it at an appropriate venue if you choose", even though that's precisely what I did a few days ago by starting this AN/I discussion. And it should be noted that my disagreement on this issue with admin Bwilkins, who chose not to reply to me on the matter, is what prompted me to start that AN/I. And the admin who closed that discusssion, even though it had only been open for a few hours and other editors agreed with me, was Bbb23, who also declined one of IP 68's unblock requests. As you'll see in Bbb23's comment as he was closing the discussion, he attempted to speak on behalf of Bwilkins instead of just letting Bwilkins speak for himself. I feel that Bbb23's close of that AN/I discussion was not only unjustified, but also a clear conflict of interest based on the fact that both he and Bwilkins were two of the admins who declined the unblock requests of IP 68, on whose talk page this entire matter originated. So Bbb23 closed that discussion by giving his assumption of what Bwilkins thought or meant, and then ended with, "I'm going to close this discussion as I believe we are into diminishing returns here". So, we have you, Dennis, telling me to start a discussion at the appropriate venue, but when I did exactly that, the discussion got shut down very quickly. Besides Jayron in the AN/I discussion, two other admins on this talk page also agree with my view, Orange Mike and Ymblanter, who told me above in this thread, "Actually, you are right." Btw, it was only after Bbb23 closed the AN/I that Bwilkins replied to my inquiry on his talk page, where he made this comment. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sooo sorry that I was away during a long Canadian holiday weekend, and didn't have the chance to respond to the pithy and pointy ANI thread. Bb actually summarized the community understanding quite well on my behalf, and it's also been pointed out by others. Now, I'm also not certain on what planet my comment from earlier today is either uncivil or a personal attack. Mr IP has a frick of a lot to learn before they start making ridiculous accusations, warnings, or indeed encouraging this other blocked IP to make any further comments. WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR do not combine well together ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, first I suggest you read: Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too. After that, understand that 76.189.109.155 wrote above, "IP 68, I want to clarify something. Please understand that my posts here and at AN/I are not intended as an effort to defend you, but rather to defend every editor's ability to remove content from their own talk pages, as long as they do not violate the exceptions articulated in WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED." So he's not here to encourage me "to make any further comments." That's on my own volition, and something I will continue to do while staying within the parameters of WP policy, something you might try. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, your continued hostility, incivility, denials, and baseless claims do nothing to help productively move this important discussion forward. It appears you are here solely to insult other editors. Since you apparently don't understand, I would suggest you read WP:WIAPA, which will explain why mutliple comments you've made to and about me today violate the policy regarding personal attacks. For example, you made this comment. The policy makes that "Belittling an editor's intelligence, knowledge, command of the English language, talent, or competence" is a personal attack, as is alleging that WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR apply to me. You of course have provided no evidence for any of your allegations and I assure you that my editing history will not support them. In fact, admin Drmies was nice enough to describe me as "a valuable contributor" just a couple days ago. So you're effort to degrade me and downplay my ability and intentions will not work. As far as your claim that I am "encouraging this other blocked IP" to comment here, it indicates that you have not fully read this talk page which directly contradicts that ridiculous allegation. And when you say "other blocked IP", I'm not sure who this other blocked IP is that you're referring to because I'm not blocked, nor have I ever been blocked. Please stop your inappropriate behavior. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Throughout your readings of policy, I'm certain that you have read that false accusations are also uncivil and could be seen as violations of WP:NPA. Nowhere on Wikipedia have I personally attacked either of the IP editors who are frequenting this talkpage right now. I have commented on behaviour which is fully appropriate. I have clarified policy, and corrected errors. Also, the suggestion that I have in my history on Wikipedia ever treated an IP editor as something less than human disgusts me, and shame on you for such disgusting suggestions - you cannot get lower than making unfounded, unsubstantiated, and utterly false statements such as that. You should be ashamed. I have recently received two 100% false "warnings" on my talkpage - I'm leaving them there for the sheer laughter, AND the proof that some IP editor clearly has no fricking clue what any of Wikipedia's policies actually say, and are merely making shit up to try and support some feeble and bizarre argument. I will not be bullied by anyone, anonymous or not, who make such unfounded and bizarre accusations. So, CUT IT OUT. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

General, about the above discussion: You know, when this issue came up, 76.189.109.155 made a good faith effort to get everyone's input on this (well, I wasn't notified, but I couldn't talk there regardless due to my ban, but anyways,), starting a discussion at ANI and personally notifying every editor who was involved or even just mentioned (like Orange Mike) in it. He's also replied in good faith and very courteously to me, I should add. So: 1. Saying "debating you serves no purpose, you can start a discussion on it an appropriate venue if you choose" seems pretty insulting, especially considering that he pointed out where he did start a discussion on it somewhere else, and 2. That discussion shows three people in support of 76.189.109.155's position, one against, and one neutral. So saying "[he] got thumped like a narc at biker rally," while unnecessary and immature, is also inaccurate.

As a personal reflection: as I see admins acting this way to a fellow admin, who has gone out of his way to be solicitous with other admins and patient and helpful with me, is there any wonder I'm frustrated with how they act toward me, a mere editor? 68.50.128.91 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice comments. It is indeed very disappointing to see any editors - especially admins - behaving in this manner, but fortunately most of the admins I have dealt with have been very friendly, supportive, helpful and patient. I have tried my best to handle this particular matter in a fair, courteous and proper manner, and I believe the record will verify this. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• That an editor can't remove discussion relating to the block is common knowledge. Other discussion can be removed, but not discussion relevant to the block. Other stuff can be removed, as I pointed out. Wikipedia doesn't write down every single rule and exception, and relies on consensus and common sense, so anything that might be considered by a reviewing admin should be left on the page. You are free to disagree, but discussing it after it has been explained is pointless if neither side is likely to be persuaded, which means it would be a debate and not a discussion. Acquiescence isn't requisite to compliance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WP obviously doesn't "write down every single rule and exception". That's simply apples and oranges. Again, if the policy were intended to mean that an editor is not allowed to remove any comments relating to an active block, as you claim, then the policy would obviously say that directly because it would be totally unambiguous and therefore prevent any misunderstanding. But it doesn't say that because that's not the policy. It would say something to the effect of, "Editors are not allowed to remove any content from their talk page that relates to a currently-active block." Simple, clear and concise. You state that it is "common knowledge" that the policy means that, even though it doesn't say it, but admin Jayron32 and the majority of other editors and admins, per prior AN/I discussions, disagree with you. So again, if you can provide proof I'll be happy to look at it. Here's the policy; please provide any quotes from it that indicate no comments relating to an active block can be removed. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that it is common knowledge that 'an editor can't remove discussion relating to the block' and would also be interested in your proof. Your statement that "editors can't remove anything relating to the block while they are blocked. This has always included discussions about the behavior or the block" can easily be proven false since it won't be hard to find the long standing consensus version of BLANKING that clearly says otherwise. This scarlet letter bullshit of forcing any and all statements to remain on the page no matter what is just silly. Any good admin will look at the page history. --Onorem (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction" is pretty unambiguous. Toddst1 (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Declined unblock? Fine. Confirmed sockpuppet? Fine. Any notice regarding an active sanction? That I hope has some discretion attached...or I can insult anyone currently sanctioned as much I'd like to as long as I make a connection to the sanction and it can't be removed. In any case, it hasn't always been the case. (and shouldn't be now, but fuck it. Admins are going to do what they want. No use in fighting it.) --Onorem (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Todd, the word "notice" ≠ "comment". If the policy intended to refer to anything relating to a current block, the policy would obviously just say that. But it doesn't. It carefully and specifically uses the word notice. Also, please stop making inappropriate comments to me like this one on Bwilkins' talk page. As an admin, it is especially improper to make uncivil remarks like that to an editor. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Even though I've been accused of having a conflict of interest in closing the ANI discussion (I'm apparently one of the bad guys), I would really love to close this discussion. A real waste of everyone's time.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't close this discussion. This is IP 68's talk page, so it is IP 68 who gets to make that decision. But it's curious as to why you're bothered by a discussion on some IP's talk page. And based on the participation in this discussion, obviously it's not a waste of everyone's time, as you claim. Regarding your role in these matters, you declined one of IP 68's unblock requests and then you subsequently closed the AN/I discussion about removing content from one's own talk page, which you knew originated here on IP 68's talk page and followed the comments here by Bwilkins, another admin who declined one of IP 68's unblock requests. Those facts are clearly relevant since Dennis Brown, an admin, wondered why this discussion was not in a more appropriate venue. So it needed to be made clear that it was in fact taken to another venue, where it was quickly closed by an involved editor (you). Others can make up their own minds about whether your closing of the AN/I was a conflict of interest. But let's be clear, this discussion isn't about you; it's about an important issue that affects all editors. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me as though this is getting too big for one user's talkpage - I've therefore opened a discussion at WT:UP to invite clarification of the issue. FWIW I pretty much agree with Dennis' interpretation, but clearly it makes sense to put an "official" clarification in place at WP:BLANKING. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your very commendable intent, Yunshui. I would say, though, that it is IP 68 who should decide if a discussion is too long for their talk page. Apparently, s/he's totally fine with it as s/he's been an active participant in the discussion. Amazingly, two involved admins attempted to forcefully close this discussion unilaterally, here and here, but fortunately another editor reverted them. This is IP 68's talk page and so IP 68 should be the one to decide if this discussion stays or goes. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I'm not suggesting that the discussion here should be closed, merely that it might benefit from being aired in a more heavily-populated environment (I only stumbled on it myself because I'd once left 68... a message and have my prefs set to watchlist any page I edit). Yunshui 雲‍水 22:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with this discussion continuing here, and would in fact prefer it, since it's origination was in the blocking of my talk page and I have a preexisting ban that prevents me from commenting on it elsewhere. But, that's a consequence of the ban, and I'll have to take my lumps if people strongly prefer to talk about it somewhere else. My ban ends in only about three hours anyways. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, thank you for your great efforts in trying to resolve this matter. Your friendliness and professionalism are greatly appreciated. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I was a little concerned that 68..., as the subject of the dispute, wouldn't be able to comment at WT:UP, but I think this discussion's gone beyond one user's block now - it's now an RFC... Yunshui 雲‍水 02:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice and link. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There are many great admins on Wikipedia, but Yunshui is one who stands out as being an exceptional example for all admins. He is someone who always treats every editor, including IPs, in a friendly, respectful and helpful manner. And he has a very strong ability to deescalate tensions and resolve lengthy disputes. It's such a pleasure to deal with someone like that. Clearly, he embraces WP:HUMAN and doesn't immedidately give second-class treatment when he sees an IP address. What a pleasure to have someone like Yunshui on Wikipedia. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Good observation. Thanks Yunshui. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Block notice 24 May 2013

I have blocked your IP for two weeks for edit warring [2]. You were very kind to remove the warning from the talk page, but I am sure the administrator who is going to consider your unblocks will be able to find it in the talk page history. The block duration is chosen on the basis of the preceding blocks for edit warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

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 for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Baseless block. This admin has incorrectly blocked me before; that block was overturned. Not sure how I can be blocked based on two reverts simply to restore a tag asking for more dialogue on the talk page. Blocking by this admin seems to be a personal retribution for past issues (see my talk page for more info). At the very least, it is a conflict of interest. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The blocking admin has blocked you twice before; the first time for disruption to the article talk page was endorsed by multiple unblock requests as well as at ANI; the second "block" was to revoke your talk page access following a different actual block, which they restored talk page access themselves after 76.189.109.155 clarified policy for them, allowing the other block to play out. In any event, having blocked you before does not result in a WP:COI. You were warned on this user page to stop edit warring, yet you removed the warning and re-added the same content to the article, and then you were blocked. 3RR is a bright-line rule, not a right - you can be blocked for edit warring for less. And given your prior disruption, a longer block would have been justified. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:58, 24 May 2013 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Unblock reviewer has previously blocked me, and has also referred to me as a "troll" twice before, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rob_Bell_%28Virginia_politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=555287298 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rob_Bell_%28Virginia_politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=555310454. Requesting impartial admin to justify how two reverts to restore a tag asking for discussion on talk page is edit warring. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (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=Unblock reviewer has previously blocked me, and has also referred to me as a "troll" twice before, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rob_Bell_%28Virginia_politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=555287298 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rob_Bell_%28Virginia_politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=555310454. Requesting impartial admin to justify how two reverts to restore a tag asking for discussion on talk page is edit warring. [[Special:Contributions/68.50.128.91|68.50.128.91]] ([[User talk:68.50.128.91#top|talk]]) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (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=Unblock reviewer has previously blocked me, and has also referred to me as a "troll" twice before, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rob_Bell_%28Virginia_politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=555287298 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rob_Bell_%28Virginia_politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=555310454. Requesting impartial admin to justify how two reverts to restore a tag asking for discussion on talk page is edit warring. [[Special:Contributions/68.50.128.91|68.50.128.91]] ([[User talk:68.50.128.91#top|talk]]) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (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=Unblock reviewer has previously blocked me, and has also referred to me as a "troll" twice before, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rob_Bell_%28Virginia_politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=555287298 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rob_Bell_%28Virginia_politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=555310454. Requesting impartial admin to justify how two reverts to restore a tag asking for discussion on talk page is edit warring. [[Special:Contributions/68.50.128.91|68.50.128.91]] ([[User talk:68.50.128.91#top|talk]]) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

For persistent removal of my block notice I revoked your talk page access. There is no rule which says block notice = standard template, and MY notice was explanation + template, which you were made very clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)