User talk:hAl

Blocked indefinitely

I've taken a look at your edits since your last block expired, and your conduct has not improved in the least. As seen in the article history for Office Open XML, you are continually removing information against consensus, despite ongoing discussions regarding your actions at Talk:Office Open XML#User hAl reverting valid material again. There is a very clear consensus here that your actions are not appropriate, and yet you persist in making them. Since you have been blocked seven times already for edit warring on this and related articles, it is clear to me that the point is not getting through. As a result, you are blocked indefinitely until you agree to stop editing any articles related to Office Open XML from this point forward. Your conduct is not constructive to that article, as demonstrated by comments on the talk page and your own block log. Additionally, I would recommend that you agree to a "1RR" restriction, where you would be limited to one revert per article per day as opposed to the usual 3RR rule. You may, as always, appeal this block by use of the {{unblock}} template. Reviewing administrators, please note that this block is under discussion at WP:ANI#Block review for User:hAl. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the discussion on this incident has now been archived, in Archive 574 at ANi.--Lester 03:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]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).

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

Request reason:

I object to this full block as the reason seems repeated previous blocks on only a single article topic (Office Open XML) which has been heavily editted by edittors with severe conflict of interest. Also I had put a message on the talk page of that topic that I would take a break from editting the specific topic before that the latest complaint seems to have been filed. Now that I return after a break from wikipedia I notice that my user has been entirely blocked. I request that the indefinite block is altered into a temporary block and only on the specific article subject

Decline reason:

The question below was deliberately vague to see if there was any chance you might see any self accountability for the actions which led to your block and community ban. I'm afraid all I can see the same intractable positioning that will lead to further disruptive editing across other articles. Perhaps another admin might see differently, but I don't feel comfortable unblocking. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 01:31, 1 December 2009 (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.

It seems to supporting discussion at ANI left off with an agreement to unblock if you agree to a topic ban from not only Office Open XML, but from all Microsoft related topics as well. Looking at your block log, Hersfold's suggestion of a temporary 1RR restriction seems sensible as well. To be clear, are you agreeing to these conditions? Kuru ^talk 16:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would there be a need for a more restrictive block than on the Office Open XML topic. I work in ICT and MS products are a major part of my knowledgebase. There is not been a single admin issue on my actions on any other topic then Office Open XML. There is no valid reason for me to get blocked on topics other than Office Open XML. It seems a lot of the current editors on ICT topics are more focussed on FOSS and object to any other angles to the topics being put forward but that is not a reason for me not to write on those. hAl (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel that you've had success in forming consensus here within your knowledgebase? What do you feel are the underlying reasons behind your current ban from Wikipedia? Kuru ^talk 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think an underlying reason is that the Office Open XML article is seen by a a group of people as a battleground for continuing a lost battle around the standardization proces of Office Open XML. They associate the objective information about format with the standardization proces (which already has a seperate article) which has left a lot of dissatisfactions with the (often foss or ms competitor related) parties. I tried to keep the article clean from the controversies surrounding that proces by focussing on the format. Apperantly that was not well recieved. Many of the current editors of the current Office Open XML article (which is a main format for MS OFfice) are now edited by foss supporters and editors working for companies like Sun and Google who have competing products using OpenDocument. I tried to keep the articles on both formats in similar objectivity. Wikipedia has always had a large support for OSS topics and a much much negative writings on Microsoft. This shows in the articles objectivity. The Office Open XML article was just an extreme example. I have seen that some improvements have been made by splitting up the article since but I can no longer be bothered so much as the reality is that the format is there to stay and even a bunch of people who want to write their frustrations on losing the standardization battleground can not write that away by manipulating wikipedia. The issues surrounding the standardization will lose importance by the day while the information about the use and features of the format will become more relevant as more people use the format. That is the natural way that things go. Even though some do not like that reality so much the article will move to more objective information on the format even without me trying to guard for that. hAl (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is really the place to restate what you tried to do; your block record appears to indicate that the community does not think your editing in these areas is objective. The block was supported by everyone who had input on it, and the conditions of an unblock appear to be a topic ban from all articles related to Office Open XML and Microsoft products to avoid what might be construed as further disruption. Thus, the question becomes whether you are interested in being unblocked if you are not allowed to edit those articles. I don't really see much room for further negotiation outside of those boundaries. Dekimasuよ! 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, I realize the question above can be read as asking you to make such a statement. However, I think you are mistaken in that interpretation. It's very unlikely that Kuru was asking you to comment on the actions of other editors. Dekimasuよ! 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Actually I read the block archive just now and the only two people asking for the block on MS topics are not independant users but are actually both been active editers in the disputed Office open XML article (user:Lester and user:Nigelj) themselves editing the Office Open MXL article themselves and their edits are vitually always only ment to put the format and/or it's relation to Micrsoft in a negative way (a lot of the problematic reverts I made surround those edits). Unlike me however they have both never contributed any objective facts on the format (like factual info on features of format itself) but add only opinionated critisism on the format features or opinionated events in ways negative to MS or they remove item that might be seen as positive. In fact user:Lester himself who states that I should be banned from all MS topics himself has stated numerous times his dislike for Microsoft and and how he thinks that the article on Office Open XML format should be more about the controversy surrounding Microsoft in the the standardization proces (which as I stated before has a seperate article anyways). I do not think that the opinions of two editers involved directly in disputed edits who both dislike MS should constitute a condition for unblocking of sorts. They may find I was difficult on their edits on MS related topics but that is logical as their edits are rarely neutral. Their negative POV interest in MS topics is clear to see in history and content of their related edits and the Office Open XML talk page history. I have a more positive attitude towards the MS related articles. Is it the intention of Wikipedia admins to only allow users who write negatively on Microsoft like the two users asking this then I should be banned as those two users asked but I do not think that should be the case. hAl (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing administrators, please note that this user was evading their block while logged out on January 17th, 2010. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(See User talk:86.83.239.142. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

File source problem with File:Nuna 5 in convoy during tests in australia.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Nuna 5 in convoy during tests in australia.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. • Anakin ^(talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuna5 presskit photo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nuna5 presskit photo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DrawingML text effect.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DrawingML text effect.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]