User talk:Vanished user 2345

Block: Enacted 6/19/2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I am blocking you because you created an article about another user in the middle of an edit war with that user. This encyclopedia must have a minimum amount of integrity that is based on the creation of articles in good faith on encyclopedic topics - and not to use encyclopedia articles as a form of attack against editors.Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Unblock Request (6/22/2010): Declined

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).

Vanished user 2345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've thought it over a bit and discussed the matter with my wife some and I'd now like to request that I be unblocked.

Before I get to the apology I want to briefly indicate what I'm not conceding, not because I'm trying to be difficult, but because I don't want my statement to be taken as some sort of disingenuous, purely tactical, volte face: I still maintain that the content of the article I wrote concerning SlimVirgin was policy compliant. I further maintain that the article itself would have been a valuable addition to Wikipedia. And I further maintain that I had every intention of going through all the appropriate channels to see the article get into the mainspace, channels that I knew would scrutinize the article quite closely for instances of meanness and other wrong-doing on my part.

But even so, after getting one too many raised eyebrows and knowing looks from my wife in our conversations on this matter, I've come to accept that while the article's content may have been innocent, the act of its creation was not. I allowed my long-standing frustrations with another editor, frustrations brought to a head by recent disagreements over the John Polkinghorne article and the ensuing 3RR report, to partially motivate me. Some small part of me got a giddy little thrill from hitting "save page" on my article, for I suspected that some small part of its subject would be irked by it.

As such, my actions weren't entirely honorable; I recognize that now. I'm sorry and I won't do it again. Eugene (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The ANI discussion is not in favor of unblocking you. Sandstein 04:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Second Unblock Request (7/29/2010): Declined

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).

Vanished user 2345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's been more than a month now and, with the "heat of the moment" fully past, I'd like to once again request that I be unblocked. Creating the page on SlimVirgin was a foolish mistake--both in terms of my timing and motives. I understand the community's response (especially now that I'm more fully aware of the background to this matter) and recognize the wisdom implicit in its decision. I've apologized to SlimVirgin personally and I can honestly say that I bear her no ill-will. I think that I have a lot to offer Wikipedia in terms of content and sourcing in my particular area of expertise and I'd be perfectly comfortable submitting to some sort of probationary civility restriction if need be. Eugene (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The ANI discussion failed to show any substantial support for unblocking . T. Canens (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Third Unblock Request (11/5/2010): Pending

This user's unblock request is on hold because the reviewer is waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator.

Vanished user 2345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Blocking administrator: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Reviewing administrator: Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request reason:

It's been more than four months now and I'd like to request that I be unblocked. My actions were inapproriate and I can see how they would undermine the project as a whole. I'm sorry. I won't repeat my mistake. Eugene (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator use only:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1=It's been more than four months now and I'd like to request that I be unblocked. My actions were inapproriate and I can see how they would undermine the project as a whole. I'm sorry. I won't repeat my mistake. Eugene (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

[reply]

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

{{unblock reviewed|1=It's been more than four months now and I'd like to request that I be unblocked. My actions were inapproriate and I can see how they would undermine the project as a whole. I'm sorry. I won't repeat my mistake. Eugene (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)|accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Unblock request put on hold while noted on ANI for full discussion Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the ANI discussion and it seems very strong community consensus is against you being unblocked, at the moment. I think it's unlikely an administrator will unblock given that strong a consensus.

I don't agree with the "throw away the key" ANI comments, but I think that the next appropriate appeal level is to appeal to Arbcom by email. If the community are so dead-set against your participation, Arbcom has a veto, and perhaps calmer heads.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that is good advice, especially with the "throw away the key" ANI comments as well as accusations of being a "disruptive" editor. Even if SlimVirgin would say "yes, unblock him", there are too many other editors who want him to stay blocked only to keep him from opposing their POVs on "historicity of Jesus" articles. In other words, there is an interest in keeping him blocked not for his actions against SlimVirgin, but to block him from contributing to certain articles. So, yes, this probably needs to go to Arbcom. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene, you created a page, believed by most at the ANI discussion to be intended to hurt and destabilise an editor. You were blocked because of your inability to admit that intent. Though you have since acknowledged that making the page was inappropriate and have called it a mistake, I see no declaration that the practice of hurting and destabilising other editors will cease. How about it, Eugene? Anthony (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony, it's nice to hear from you. I understand your concern. Allow me to say that I never intended to "hurt" another editor in any sort of personal way; I do grant, however, that my abortive attempt at the BLP that landed me in this trouble was intended to "destabilize" an opponent's opposition in a content dispute. I repent of that and apologize. I've no intention of repeating my mistake. In any event I doubt that such a declaration, indeed any declaration on my part, will move the ANI to unblock me. For whatever reason, a notable percentage of "the community" have seen fit to tar me with a number of disreputable and untrue labels that, I fear, have prejudiced the discussion against me. In connection with this process I've been called a "fundamentalist", an "unrepentant vandal", and just recently a "religious looney". One editor even implied that I was some sort of evil genius cabable of twisting lesser minds to do my bidding. Given all this the opposition to my return is less that surprising; I mean, who wouldn't want to unblock some sort of crazy fundamentalist mind-pusher vandal? I'll probably have to take Georgewilliamherbert's advice and appeal to the ArbCom in hopes of a fairer hearing. Eugene (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most watchers and commentators at ANI just want to believe that you'll treat your interlocutors with respect, and that you've learned the difference between "argument" and "conflict." Anthony (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that really is the case then I whole-heartedly declare that I'll treat other editors, even those who disagree with me, with respect. If need be I'll submit to a civility restriction or something as a sign of good faith. Eugene (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that simply adhering to your Christian teachings should fix everything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect I'll have to be more cordial than just that. In any event, I'm confident that I can play nice. Eugene (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]