User talk:82.21.25.153
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
82.21.25.153 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am sorry who did I "harass"? I haven't referred to, referenced, or replied to anyone. You 'd think that banning me would entail if not an explanation then a quote on where I broke any rules, but I guess you are above that here, in the "free" encyclopedia
Decline reason:
I rather think the blocking admin chose to do so because your limited edit history seems to suggest you're here to complain about notable people, rather than contribute constructively, and that you don't assume good faith (in fact, your unblock request demonstrates just that). The length of the block seems excessive, but at this point I'm not lifting it. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2010 (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.
82.21.25.153 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have contributed very constructively via my criticism. You are not the arbitrator of how constructively I contribute or not, and from all my reading of the regulations there is no banning rule for not contributing constructively enough. What is more, this is in contradiction of the harassment reason for my ban, if you can't verify harassment then you should lift the ban because that's the original reason of my being banned. So which is it? Did I actually harass anyone? Or did I complain too much? And you are being very hypocritical in wanting me to accept good faith when the safe keeper (that other guy here) of the regulations here in wikipedia is blatantly not assuming good faith, and harassing me instead with this ban. It's the outmost hypocrisy to say here we ban you for no reason, we hit with a stick, but please assume good faith and even the mere fact that you dare ask for an unblock from us holier than thou arbitrators here is a breach of good faith. Well guess what what good faith is only assumed when there is no evidence of bad faith, "bad faith", hostility, and inconsideration has been shown by the the other user, I can't assume anything anymore, because I have an event at hand. But according to your rationale it seems that like a good little boy I should have said, oh, this wise person in his infinite wisdom and impartiality decides out of the blue to ban me, I should assume good faith from his part (because there's so much kindness and consideration emanating from him, right?) and you know say oh he is absolutely right I am going to wait this out....You should lift the ban immediately.
Decline reason:
You obviously came here with an agenda and your edits were meant for no reason other than to disrupt. I agree with the above admin, that the length of the block is a little on the long side, but I see no reason to remove it. Trusilver 19:18, 20 February 2010 (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.
82.21.25.153 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
LOL! So now I didn't harass anyone now, so the original ban is wrong, but now I "obviously" have an agenda. What then is my obvious agenda in your infinite wisdom and on what grounds would you base that I have one? Because you said so I guess, it suffices, right? And my agenda is so strong that I 've made what, a couple of additions to very different talk pages over the past month and half or so? Boy I must have really big agenda to push, let me think, what am I trying to push... Such an agenda when I have not actually made any changes to the articles themselves. Whilst the actual editors who do have agendas everywhere in wikipedia actually get to make changes to wikipedia articles all the time 24/7... and I am disallowed to make a couple of comments on two talk pages of pretty much immaterial consequence? That is just so funny.... You make a little criticism in a couple of talk pages and all of sudden some guy decides to ban you for a month on a false claim (that one of you has verified, the allegation that I have harassed other users) because they fashion themselves as some global arbitrators of knowledge and immune to any criticism whatsoever and rejoice in the petty power a few keys provide them... How utterly sad. Do you think that the title of "free encyclopedia" might merit you finally gracing any of your posts with a definite response on any of this instead of the embarrassing evasiveness each one of you have shown so far? Because there is a strong case to be made that cronyism and arbitrarily abusing power to ban are the only things at play (and at stake) here. Ok, I got it, pretty much my sole comment has been on Shakira, verbatim: Her supposed " Philanthropy and humanitarian work" is just a pr image, way overshadowed by her association with the son of the Argentinean junta's dictator. Sure, Shakira has friends in high places, and wikipedia readers should hear about her "philanthropy" instead of her blatant disrespect for the dead of torture. this is despicable and revolting. I know the likes of the people that edit these articles, so that does not surprise me. Their blood is in your hands you petty censors. I won't try to edit this, because it will only result in some lackeys attacking me and getting their way, same old same old...People died so this starlet's philanthropy would exhaust itself when it came to the actual victims of torture, death, and murder... How utterly revolting...enjoy wikipedia...propaganda and whitewash in a whole new dimension... 82.21.25.153 (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Oh man, oh man how the truth hurts, doesn't it, my evil "agenda" to protect victims of the argentinian junta, based on a single comment once in a talk page. That's my generally disruptive attitude. You are laughing stocks, that's what you are... edit: Ok, forget it, I am honored by this ban actually, this is the kid that decided to ban me: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/User-Coffee_in_dorms.png/300px-User-Coffee_in_dorms.png And I am sitting here arguing rationally, wasting my time -and here you go have your "harassment" for real for a change- over some snotty moron kid with too much time on his hands who claims (man, this is just so funny) that they: "I'm not someone who likes to beat around the bush, so usually you'll see me in discussions being extremely blunt, and sometimes it might seem uncivil, but anything I say is not meant to hurt someone, it's usually just the way I feel." What I do wonder is which of the ten or so sentences I 've written in wikipedia got on the wrong side of this delusional bozo. Snotty 17 year olds projecting their daddy and mammy issues on the world. Oh the joy of wiki and cyberspace. Hey kid, guess what you banned me asshole, now go back to your pathetic little life, and wank another for Shakira, that's what you do best isn't it? Wanker.
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Please bear in mind that further abuse of this template will result in removal of your talk page access. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:28, 20 February 2010 (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.
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |