User talk:Macktheknifeau

Blocked again

Hi again Macktheknifeau. I have blocked your account indefinitely for the continuing violations of WP:POINT in the Australian sports matter. It disappoints me that you have apparently failed to learn from your previous blocks and the commentary around them, both centrally and here at your user talk page. As before, if you are able to understand what you are doing wrong and clearly state that you will not do it any more, I (or any admin) can unblock you. As you know very well by now, to post an unblock add {{unblock|your reason here ~~~~}} but you should definitely read WP:GAB first. --John (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Take a good hard look at what you've done. Permanently banned a user who has been editing the site for 8 years because they changed a sports team's nickname to it's official Wikipedia article title in a handful of articles. Congratulations, you are the new poster child for bureaucracy gone mad. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Your accusations of "guerilla warfare" are reprehensible. I am not 'making war', I am making legitimate edits to improve the clarity of articles. Did you even bother to read the discussion? No-one has actually managed to explain how using the official title of an article on the wiki is 'disruptive' or in any way breaches the existing consensus. I find your accusation of bad faith astounding coming from someone who is meant to be an admin. I request you withdraw those accusations immediately. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Another illegitimate block.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

My edits are legitimate. I replaced around a dozen references to a sports teams nickname on a small handful of articles with a direct link to Wikipedia's official article title for that team. There was no policy breach, consensus breach or 'disruption'.

No-one would possibly suggest that we should use "Jimbo" instead of Jimmy Wales on articles related to Wikipedia, yet I've been banned because I've changed the equivalent of "Jimbo" to Jimmy Wales to improve article clarity.

The accusation that I have breached "WP:POINT" doesn't match the wording of the actual WP:POINT guideline: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently."

I am not 'frustrated' with the way that we use the official article title as the best way to link to other articles. Which is all I have done. Used the official wikipedia article title to link to the topic page, on a handful of related articles.

Calling my legitimate edits "pointy" is the subjective opinion of a handful of editors with vendettas against me, and is the last refuge of people who can't actually find any reason why my edits are wrong, or against policy, and instead simply dislike them because of a 'gut feel' because it violates their ideology.

I demand an immediate unblock and request for John to be banned from being involved in any administrative decisions involving me, because of his blatant bias against me. He has had this bias ever since I called him out for his atrocious adminship, with his last block against me being as a result of him changing the rules after I had made edits based on a previous set of rules he approved. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:21, 22 May 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=My edits are legitimate. I replaced around a dozen references to a sports teams nickname on a small handful of articles with a direct link to Wikipedia's official article title for that team. There was no policy breach, consensus breach or 'disruption'. No-one would possibly suggest that we should use "Jimbo" instead of [[Jimmy Wales]] on articles related to Wikipedia, yet I've been banned because I've changed the equivalent of "Jimbo" to [[Jimmy Wales]] to improve article clarity. The accusation that I have breached "[[WP:POINT]]" doesn't match the wording of the actual [[WP:POINT]] guideline: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently." I am not 'frustrated' with the way that we use the official article title as the best way to link to other articles. Which is all I have done. Used the official wikipedia article title to link to the topic page, on a handful of related articles. Calling my legitimate edits "pointy" is the subjective opinion of a handful of editors with vendettas against me, and is the last refuge of people who can't actually find any reason why my edits are wrong, or against policy, and instead simply dislike them because of a 'gut feel' because it violates their ideology. I demand an immediate unblock and request for John to be banned from being involved in any administrative decisions involving me, because of his blatant bias against me. He has had this bias ever since I called him out for his atrocious adminship, with his last block against me being as a result of him changing the rules after I had made edits based on a previous set of rules ''he approved''. [[User:Macktheknifeau|Macktheknifeau]] ([[User talk:Macktheknifeau#top|talk]]) 15:21, 22 May 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=My edits are legitimate. I replaced around a dozen references to a sports teams nickname on a small handful of articles with a direct link to Wikipedia's official article title for that team. There was no policy breach, consensus breach or 'disruption'. No-one would possibly suggest that we should use "Jimbo" instead of [[Jimmy Wales]] on articles related to Wikipedia, yet I've been banned because I've changed the equivalent of "Jimbo" to [[Jimmy Wales]] to improve article clarity. The accusation that I have breached "[[WP:POINT]]" doesn't match the wording of the actual [[WP:POINT]] guideline: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently." I am not 'frustrated' with the way that we use the official article title as the best way to link to other articles. Which is all I have done. Used the official wikipedia article title to link to the topic page, on a handful of related articles. Calling my legitimate edits "pointy" is the subjective opinion of a handful of editors with vendettas against me, and is the last refuge of people who can't actually find any reason why my edits are wrong, or against policy, and instead simply dislike them because of a 'gut feel' because it violates their ideology. I demand an immediate unblock and request for John to be banned from being involved in any administrative decisions involving me, because of his blatant bias against me. He has had this bias ever since I called him out for his atrocious adminship, with his last block against me being as a result of him changing the rules after I had made edits based on a previous set of rules ''he approved''. [[User:Macktheknifeau|Macktheknifeau]] ([[User talk:Macktheknifeau#top|talk]]) 15:21, 22 May 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=My edits are legitimate. I replaced around a dozen references to a sports teams nickname on a small handful of articles with a direct link to Wikipedia's official article title for that team. There was no policy breach, consensus breach or 'disruption'. No-one would possibly suggest that we should use "Jimbo" instead of [[Jimmy Wales]] on articles related to Wikipedia, yet I've been banned because I've changed the equivalent of "Jimbo" to [[Jimmy Wales]] to improve article clarity. The accusation that I have breached "[[WP:POINT]]" doesn't match the wording of the actual [[WP:POINT]] guideline: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently." I am not 'frustrated' with the way that we use the official article title as the best way to link to other articles. Which is all I have done. Used the official wikipedia article title to link to the topic page, on a handful of related articles. Calling my legitimate edits "pointy" is the subjective opinion of a handful of editors with vendettas against me, and is the last refuge of people who can't actually find any reason why my edits are wrong, or against policy, and instead simply dislike them because of a 'gut feel' because it violates their ideology. I demand an immediate unblock and request for John to be banned from being involved in any administrative decisions involving me, because of his blatant bias against me. He has had this bias ever since I called him out for his atrocious adminship, with his last block against me being as a result of him changing the rules after I had made edits based on a previous set of rules ''he approved''. [[User:Macktheknifeau|Macktheknifeau]] ([[User talk:Macktheknifeau#top|talk]]) 15:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Note for reviewing admin

User has 3 previous blocks for disruptive behaviour in connection with Australian sports naming rules in March and April. All were reviewed at AN/I and found to be proper (diffs on request). Has recently returned to making edits which seem contentious, clumsy, and POINTy in relation to Australian sports naming rules and have been discussed as such here.

• Sample edit
• Repeats edit when reverted

Macktheknifeau was warned here that any recidivism in the area would not be tolerated, and so it has proved. I was worried this might play out this way and would still love to see Mack turn his behaviour around. I will be happy if any admin can suggest a better way out of this than an indef for someone who wishes to contribute, but I cannot see this myself at present. --John (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how many times do you feel an admin has to block someone before WP:INVOLVED comes into play? Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 17:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)