User talk:Cptchipjew: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:46, 4 May 2010

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

So kids, this is the Wikipedia of today...

The story so far:

About 3 and a half years ago I voted to delete on a VfD for an article about some no-name blogger that very few people had heard of. The idea was pretty simple. The article was clearly written by the subject, and there was no encyclopedia merit to it whatsoever. Members of the GNAA also involved themselves in this particular VfD, as they were on some sort of trolling-campaign to get blogger related articles deleted from Wikipedia. On the 29th of November, 2006, a Wikipedia admin by the name of Tawker decided to go on a rampage and ban a bunch of the people that voted to delete. Why? Because if the GNAA was involved, it was surely just a big troll and sockpuppet brigade. Forget about the fact that the article was ultimately deleted for the very reason the VfD was created. Apparently, if a troll is involved, nobody is willing to listen, and an administrator carpetbomb ensues.

I liken this behavior by the Wikipedia admins to the following:

Country X bombing the bejeesus out of Country Y, killing numerous civilians because one member of Country Y shot one member of Country X.
Some non-existent legal system where the burden of proof somehow falls on the accused, not the accuser.

Although I've attempted to get myself unblocked 3 or 4 times, each time it is rejected. Of course, the admins choosing to reject the unblock have no idea why the original block was put into place, nor are they going to expend any effort to try to find out why.

Now unblock me, or just revise this change, or reject the request, and prove to the world what you've become.

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=So kids, this is the Wikipedia of today...

== The story so far:==
About 3 and a half years ago I voted to delete on a VfD for an article about some no-name blogger that very few people had heard of. The idea was pretty simple. The article was clearly written by the subject, and there was no encyclopedia merit to it whatsoever. Members of the GNAA also involved themselves in this particular VfD, as they were on some sort of trolling-campaign to get blogger related articles deleted from Wikipedia. On the 29th of November, 2006, a Wikipedia admin by the name of Tawker decided to go on a rampage and ban a bunch of the people that voted to delete. Why? Because if the GNAA was involved, it was surely just a big troll and sockpuppet brigade. Forget about the fact that '''the article was ultimately deleted for the very reason the VfD was created'''. Apparently, if a troll is involved, nobody is willing to listen, and an administrator carpetbomb ensues.

I liken this behavior by the Wikipedia admins to the following:
* Country X bombing the bejeesus out of Country Y, killing numerous civilians because one member of Country Y shot one member of Country X.
* Some non-existent legal system where the burden of proof somehow falls on the accused, not the accuser.

Although I've attempted to get myself unblocked 3 or 4 times, each time it is rejected. Of course, the admins choosing to reject the unblock have no idea why the original block was put into place, nor are they going to expend any effort to try to find out why.

Now unblock me, or just revise this change, or reject the request, and prove to the world what you've become. |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=So kids, this is the Wikipedia of today...

== The story so far:==
About 3 and a half years ago I voted to delete on a VfD for an article about some no-name blogger that very few people had heard of. The idea was pretty simple. The article was clearly written by the subject, and there was no encyclopedia merit to it whatsoever. Members of the GNAA also involved themselves in this particular VfD, as they were on some sort of trolling-campaign to get blogger related articles deleted from Wikipedia. On the 29th of November, 2006, a Wikipedia admin by the name of Tawker decided to go on a rampage and ban a bunch of the people that voted to delete. Why? Because if the GNAA was involved, it was surely just a big troll and sockpuppet brigade. Forget about the fact that '''the article was ultimately deleted for the very reason the VfD was created'''. Apparently, if a troll is involved, nobody is willing to listen, and an administrator carpetbomb ensues.

I liken this behavior by the Wikipedia admins to the following:
* Country X bombing the bejeesus out of Country Y, killing numerous civilians because one member of Country Y shot one member of Country X.
* Some non-existent legal system where the burden of proof somehow falls on the accused, not the accuser.

Although I've attempted to get myself unblocked 3 or 4 times, each time it is rejected. Of course, the admins choosing to reject the unblock have no idea why the original block was put into place, nor are they going to expend any effort to try to find out why.

Now unblock me, or just revise this change, or reject the request, and prove to the world what you've become. |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=So kids, this is the Wikipedia of today...

== The story so far:==
About 3 and a half years ago I voted to delete on a VfD for an article about some no-name blogger that very few people had heard of. The idea was pretty simple. The article was clearly written by the subject, and there was no encyclopedia merit to it whatsoever. Members of the GNAA also involved themselves in this particular VfD, as they were on some sort of trolling-campaign to get blogger related articles deleted from Wikipedia. On the 29th of November, 2006, a Wikipedia admin by the name of Tawker decided to go on a rampage and ban a bunch of the people that voted to delete. Why? Because if the GNAA was involved, it was surely just a big troll and sockpuppet brigade. Forget about the fact that '''the article was ultimately deleted for the very reason the VfD was created'''. Apparently, if a troll is involved, nobody is willing to listen, and an administrator carpetbomb ensues.

I liken this behavior by the Wikipedia admins to the following:
* Country X bombing the bejeesus out of Country Y, killing numerous civilians because one member of Country Y shot one member of Country X.
* Some non-existent legal system where the burden of proof somehow falls on the accused, not the accuser.

Although I've attempted to get myself unblocked 3 or 4 times, each time it is rejected. Of course, the admins choosing to reject the unblock have no idea why the original block was put into place, nor are they going to expend any effort to try to find out why.

Now unblock me, or just revise this change, or reject the request, and prove to the world what you've become. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{unblock|So kids, this is the Wikipedia of today...
-{{unblock reviewed|1=It's 2010 and I've been banned far too l. This is cruel and unusual epunishment!|decline=I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
-*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, <u>or</u>
-*the block is no longer necessary because you
-**understand what you have been blocked for,
-**will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
-**will make useful contributions instead.
+== The story so far:==
-Please read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. <font color="darkorange">[[User:Tnxman307|TN]]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>[[User talk:Tnxman307|X]]</big></font></b><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Tnxman307|Man]]</font> 23:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)}}
+About 3 and a half years ago I voted to delete on a VfD for an article about some no-name blogger that very few people had heard of. The idea was pretty simple. The article was clearly written by the subject, and there was no encyclopedia merit to it whatsoever. Members of the GNAA also involved themselves in this particular VfD, as they were on some sort of trolling-campaign to get blogger related articles deleted from Wikipedia. On the 29th of November, 2006, a Wikipedia admin by the name of Tawker decided to go on a rampage and ban a bunch of the people that voted to delete. Why? Because if the GNAA was involved, it was surely just a big troll and sockpuppet brigade. Forget about the fact that '''the article was ultimately deleted for the very reason the VfD was created'''. Apparently, if a troll is involved, nobody is willing to listen, and an administrator carpetbomb ensues.
+I liken this behavior by the Wikipedia admins to the following:
-{{unblock reviewed|1=I want to start contributing to a number of troubled articles. See [[Kibera]] for an example of an article needing cleanup. Plus, this ban was put into place a long time ago, and for something that I didn't even do (though of course I can't really prove that now and don't expect you to believe it)|decline=I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
+* Country X bombing the bejeesus out of Country Y, killing numerous civilians because one member of Country Y shot one member of Country X.
-*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, <u>or</u>
+* Some non-existent legal system where the burden of proof somehow falls on the accused, not the accuser.
-*the block is no longer necessary because you
-**understand what you have been blocked for,
-**will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
-**will make useful contributions instead.
+Although I've attempted to get myself unblocked 3 or 4 times, each time it is rejected. Of course, the admins choosing to reject the unblock have no idea why the original block was put into place, nor are they going to expend any effort to try to find out why.
-Please read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. Please note that further abuse of this template will result in removal of your talk page access.  -'''[[User:Fastily|<span style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; color:#4B0082'><big>F</big><small>ASTILY</small>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<font color="#4B0082">(T<small>ALK</small>)</font>]]</small></sup></span> 06:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)}}
+Now unblock me, or just revise this change, or reject the request, and prove to the world what you've become.}}
-{{unblock reviewed|1=As can be read below, I gave a full explanation as to why I should be unblocked (I want to edit specific articles for spelling/grammar), and yet I still get the same boilerplate response. I've been banned for 3.5 years. This nonsense has gone on long enough.|decline=Having read the above, I see nothing that remotely addresses the reasons for your block, and thus it's quite clear why you remain blocked.  You were blocked for both trolling and sockpuppetry - please show me where you even came close to addressing those behaviours, as per [[WP:GAB|the guide to appealing blocks]]. While you're at it, try to even come close to explaining not only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drini&diff=prev&oldid=49046099 this], but the fact that you felt so compelled to [[WP:HARASS|harass]] another user by continually re-adding it to their userpage  ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]&nbsp;'''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 09:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)}}
-== May 2010 ==
-[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of [[Special:Contributions/Cptchipjew|your recent edits]], such as the one you made to [[:User talk:Cptchipjew]], did not appear to be constructive and has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]] or removed. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉ message]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|changes]]) 23:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)