User talk:71.219.184.69

Blocked for 24 hours for harassment

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Huh? How can the admin charge "abuse" by the reporting user, when the user who's violations were reported claimed there was no "discussion"? Clearly this is admin retalition for providing a valid report, as there's no way the detailed WP:MOS violations knowingly performed by the reported user can be excused. Even the reporting User's detailed and thorough edit summaries clearly identify the violation - how can a clear notification & report be "abuse"? Additionally, the admin doesn't specify any action that is "abuse", not a single one. This is an example of systemic problem with Wikipedia managements that condones inaccuracy and lack of honesty, which is why Wikipedia's reputation is low (e.g., the butt of jokes as by Jay Leno). Worse, this "abuse" of authority (block a user by claiming "abuse" without specifying the abuse) is itself a violation, but of course that will go unreported during the block. And it appears the admin did not make any comment whatsoever regarding the clear and repeated violations that were reported? Where is the page for reporting these admin abuses of authority? Even if it was just admin laziness (e.g., 'I don't want to take the time'), that's not an excuse. Methinks this appeal will be denied without specifying why (nor obtaining and publishing the specific reason for the block), but that would be par for the "abuse of authority" crooked course, right?! 71.219.184.69 (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2010 (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=Huh? How can the admin charge "abuse" by the reporting user, when the user who's violations were reported claimed there was no "discussion"? Clearly this is admin retalition for providing a valid report, as there's no way the detailed WP:MOS violations knowingly performed by the reported user can be excused. Even the reporting User's detailed and thorough edit summaries clearly identify the violation - how can a clear notification & report be "abuse"? Additionally, the admin doesn't specify any action that is "abuse", not a single one. This is an example of systemic problem with Wikipedia managements that condones inaccuracy and lack of honesty, which is why Wikipedia's reputation is low (e.g., the butt of jokes as by Jay Leno). Worse, this "abuse" of authority (block a user by claiming "abuse" without specifying the abuse) is itself a violation, but of course that will go unreported during the block. And it appears the admin did not make any comment whatsoever regarding the clear and repeated violations that were reported? Where is the page for reporting these admin abuses of authority? Even if it was just admin laziness (e.g., 'I don't want to take the time'), that's not an excuse. Methinks this appeal will be denied without specifying why (nor obtaining and publishing the specific reason for the block), but that would be par for the "abuse of authority" crooked course, right?! [[Special:Contributions/71.219.184.69|71.219.184.69]] ([[User talk:71.219.184.69#top|talk]]) 02:34, 16 June 2010 (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=Huh? How can the admin charge "abuse" by the reporting user, when the user who's violations were reported claimed there was no "discussion"? Clearly this is admin retalition for providing a valid report, as there's no way the detailed WP:MOS violations knowingly performed by the reported user can be excused. Even the reporting User's detailed and thorough edit summaries clearly identify the violation - how can a clear notification & report be "abuse"? Additionally, the admin doesn't specify any action that is "abuse", not a single one. This is an example of systemic problem with Wikipedia managements that condones inaccuracy and lack of honesty, which is why Wikipedia's reputation is low (e.g., the butt of jokes as by Jay Leno). Worse, this "abuse" of authority (block a user by claiming "abuse" without specifying the abuse) is itself a violation, but of course that will go unreported during the block. And it appears the admin did not make any comment whatsoever regarding the clear and repeated violations that were reported? Where is the page for reporting these admin abuses of authority? Even if it was just admin laziness (e.g., 'I don't want to take the time'), that's not an excuse. Methinks this appeal will be denied without specifying why (nor obtaining and publishing the specific reason for the block), but that would be par for the "abuse of authority" crooked course, right?! [[Special:Contributions/71.219.184.69|71.219.184.69]] ([[User talk:71.219.184.69#top|talk]]) 02:34, 16 June 2010 (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=Huh? How can the admin charge "abuse" by the reporting user, when the user who's violations were reported claimed there was no "discussion"? Clearly this is admin retalition for providing a valid report, as there's no way the detailed WP:MOS violations knowingly performed by the reported user can be excused. Even the reporting User's detailed and thorough edit summaries clearly identify the violation - how can a clear notification & report be "abuse"? Additionally, the admin doesn't specify any action that is "abuse", not a single one. This is an example of systemic problem with Wikipedia managements that condones inaccuracy and lack of honesty, which is why Wikipedia's reputation is low (e.g., the butt of jokes as by Jay Leno). Worse, this "abuse" of authority (block a user by claiming "abuse" without specifying the abuse) is itself a violation, but of course that will go unreported during the block. And it appears the admin did not make any comment whatsoever regarding the clear and repeated violations that were reported? Where is the page for reporting these admin abuses of authority? Even if it was just admin laziness (e.g., 'I don't want to take the time'), that's not an excuse. Methinks this appeal will be denied without specifying why (nor obtaining and publishing the specific reason for the block), but that would be par for the "abuse of authority" crooked course, right?! [[Special:Contributions/71.219.184.69|71.219.184.69]] ([[User talk:71.219.184.69#top|talk]]) 02:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}