User talk:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz

Well that's interesting.

It's funny how different the treatment is depending on who's doing the bullying of an editor. In one case they're falling over themselves to stop the harassment, in an almost identical situation they're falling over each other to see who can be the first to swing the bat at someone's kneecaps. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kyle

Thank you so much for preventing vandalism on Chris Kyle. I noticed some IP address was edit warring to. The page now currently has admin protection to. Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at American Sniper. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Katie^talk 11:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to rethink your approach to editing while you're away. When you're not edit warring you make valuable contributions, but you've been around long enough to know that long-term edit warriors can eventually get themselves topic banned or community banned. Please do some reflection. Katie^talk 11:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie, as far as I am concerned, this is extremely inappropriate - at the very minimum, if I am being given this, then there are others who should be as well. The type of untoward behavior, including having editors who openly declare they refuse to work with others, is ridiculous coming from Winkelvi and DHeyward. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I do not feel this is appropriate given the circumstances, both that I have been singled out and heavily trolled and targeted.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM as are your comments below, some of which are personal attacks. Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2016 (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.

@KrakatoaKatie: @Keri: this diff came up as I looked in this morning. I'm now DOUBLY incensed to be treated in this manner by KrakatoaKatie, in the face of what I have been on the receiving end of. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie:@Keri: as did this diff - I find it interesting how Winkelvi and DHeyward are both so interesting in controlling and removing any comment they dislike. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keri: regarding this, I think dancing around it is meaningless. The only two logical explanations for this one for instance are either Winkelvi or DHeyward logging out to hide edits, or else a result of off site canvassing that was first observed a couple days ago. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I do not feel this is appropriate - nor is it appropriate for Bbb23, who has stated an antipathy towards me for reasons I can't understand, to be the reviewer.

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=I do not feel this is appropriate - nor is it appropriate for Bbb23, who has stated an antipathy towards me for reasons I can't understand, to be the reviewer. |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=I do not feel this is appropriate - nor is it appropriate for Bbb23, who has stated an antipathy towards me for reasons I can't understand, to be the reviewer. |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=I do not feel this is appropriate - nor is it appropriate for Bbb23, who has stated an antipathy towards me for reasons I can't understand, to be the reviewer. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Keri (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keri: Thanks, but you already know that thanks to a bad-faith block, I can't participate. Notifying me of it is pretty meaningless unless you intend me just to be frustrated by that fact. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Keri:, I have forwarded you something that was sent to my email this morning. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of all involved parties is required, but it was also for information purposes. I don't know what the result of the ANI discussion might be, but there is also a very slight possibility that an admin may unblock you only for the purposes of joining an ANI discussion. But that's only speculation, and the discussion may be very short. Keri (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 hates me and has said so openly. I have no idea why except that I may have stood up to one of his bullying friends without knowing they were connected, he seems like a grudge-holding type. I'm willing to be he's already WP:CANVASing for a proxy for a second denial right now. At this point I am not going to count on anything, least of all the policies of wikipedia actually being followed by any admin. Highly frustrated to have to endure a long period of getting trolled, only to come by and have someone who doesn't bother to look at the situation just decide to beat up on me. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]