User talk:Velten

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Extraordinary Machine is abusing an ArbCom ruling by making up excuses to initiate blocks on me at any given time he wants. He claims I am still stalking him at two articles where I simply corrected information and formated charts. I need help here and there has to be clarification because both these are unacceptable (he and I edit the same music-related articles and the two in question I edited before he touched them) and another reason given for the block has nothing to do with the ArbCom ruling. I'm trying to participate in an RFAR discussion too, which he is now intentionally tampering with.

Decline reason:

You appear to be gaming the system. Don't. Guy 22:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

---

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.

• I have not looked into the edits you were blocked for but I am concerned that 3 weeks is outside the scope of the arbitration remedy. I have asked EM to reduce the block to one week. Thatcher131 14:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• The edit for simply restoring incorrectly removed info

• The edit for formatting

By the way, Bish

I think you're well aware of what the library can do. I don't blame you if you'd forgotten, but this was what I did to attract your attention. Velten 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If I'd forgotten? What's wrong with you? You said "the library has new material that can unblock Wikipedia-enforced bans, which Bishonen acknowledged". You talking nonsense and me not replying to it, that's "Bishonen acknowledged" now? Get a grip. On reality. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

I think those links prove very clearly that you know I can unblock myself at any given time. Please stop beating around the bush. Velten 23:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To add, in all fairness, I think it's quite pitiful that Bishonen did all this (Nov. 2005–now!) simply because she didn't like that somebody opposed her view. Oh heavens! Can't I be saved?! Help! I'm drowning! Everything is fine when it's about someone you hate, but it's so unfair! when it's your best friend! A shame on their biased views! I'm positive it's obvious that it's their way or no way at that. I mean, they wanted to drive a great contributor away because they thought Bishonen was wrong; oh, I'm sorry Bish! Please slave me to the death!!!!!!! Velten 23:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And yes, you certainly acknowledged it.

For EM

I think they've established that it's a library. Velten 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

With the greatest respect for Geogre, that seemed to be an educated guess more than anything. Regardless, you're now claiming you're editing from a school library, while on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration you said you are editing from a reference library. [1] Extraordinary Machine 16:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a reference library. I never said that they've established it's a school library; those are their own assumptions which they've chatted about offline. I never claimed that I edited from a school library. The link is there to clearly prove what some users have acknowledged, and for some reason, they seem to think this is a school library. But no, it's a reference library, which I've touted as far back as January. I'm sure that was a sincere guess. Velten 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on request for unblock

EE/Velten has a long history of parachuting into articles barely days after I have edited them; see this message I left at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, as well as [2]. Velten, that we both edit in the same (very broad) subject area does absolutely nothing to explain your strange habit of parachuting into articles barely days after I have edited them, particularly as several of your "stalking" edits were related to content within my own userspace. It doesn't matter what edits you are doing to Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album); you still wouldn't be regularly editing them if I hadn't started doing so myself. You also have a history of harassing editors such as Bishonen and Giano, none of whom edit pop music articles.

I've given the reasons for my block; it's not "making up excuses" if you have clearly disrupted a page after being told many times not to. Removing old AFD notices has the exact same effect as editing or removing other people's comments, which you were told many times not to do. I am not "tampering with" any discussion and I do not appreciate being accused of doing so. Extraordinary Machine 16:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• To be bluntly honest, I don't quite give a damn about what you do and don't appreciate.

1. I made significant edits to Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song) long before you did; in the first article I simply restored information that was removed by an IP address user; I added that information in mid-July, long before you started editing that article.
2. For Promiscuous (song), I did reformat the charts, which I had done here, here, here, here ... (the list goes on) that day.
3. Removing old AFD notices has the exact same effect as editing or removing other people's comments, which you were told many times not to do — that's not part of the ArbCom ruling. I explained clearly here that I removed the template because the AFD was unusual, was speedily removed, and the nominator was eventually ostricized for his/her questionable conduct. You stated that you considered it disruption. Basically, you're telling me that part of the block was initiated because you felt it was inappropriate; that's ridiculous. Personally, I did not consider it disruption because it was (as I stated) confusing. Those are two separate opinions and you did not bother to discuss it with me, instead assuming your view and blocking me. That's incredibly irresponsible.
4. I request that Extraordinary Machine have his sysop abilities formally disabled per misconduct. This block was initiated in bad faith and I'm suspecting that it was simply to rid of me for another period of time; if this continues, essentially I'll be blocked for lengthier periods of time because EM will see something that he considers outrageous, even though it won't be. I also request that he be banished from editing on my talk page.

Velten 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty tired of being blocked when there's an important ongoing discussion elsewhere on Wikipedia. Seems somewhat suspicious to me. Velten 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I back you on having EM getting his admin revoked, it's very obvious he abuses his powers. --Thankyoubaby 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why has nobody responded to this ridiculous block yet? I am concerned about this. Velten 02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no one else from the CAT:RFU team has reviewed your block, I suggest that you contact an Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee member directly to review your most recent block. I have a feeling that most of us block reviewers including myself do not wish to involve ourselves in a complex matter with a long history that appears to be an ArbCom matter only. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed it. This gives every appearance of gaming the system. Velten is engaging in behaviour she knows without any question at all is both disruptive and forbidden, and it really is about time she learned better. Last time this was discussed in the ArbCom ruling clarifications section the clarification was unequivocal support for a block. Guy 22:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Guy didn't review my block because all those edits and links I've provided aren't disruptive or forbidden; adding content on Wikipedia is forbidden? You're feeding garbage to me. As the user above you stated, you're simply not shortening my block because you don't want to get involved with the complexity. It looks like I'm going to unblock this account myself. Velten 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)