User talk:86.45.194.120

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by Johnjoecavanagh.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

[edit] September 2007

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for You have been blocked for persistent harrassment of User:SchuminWeb.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I beseech anyone other than SchuminWeb to look into this case; If you examine what I said closely, I merely asked him to remove the advertisement in his talk page, which is against the rules of Wikipedia. I then kindly asked to discuss his supposed inclusionist policy. Every time I asked to further discuss it, he reverted my posts as vandalism. I may have lost my temper, but he refused to talk to me. I beg someone from an impartial position to examine this situation and offer a fair comprimise. By the looks of it, Ben Schumin has pissed off many hard working contributors - its people like this who is detracting from the hard work of this fine encyclopedia."

Decline reason: "Trying to provoke someone is unacceptable. Violating WP:CIVIL is unacceptable. — ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I will take a look for you. SGGH speak! 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well you didn't get off on the best foot I know you were just asking a question but you come accross as very provocative. I know it may not have been your attention but it befalls every captain to anticipate the consequences of his own wake, and you did apologise here. This comment is done a little abrupty. This is unacceptable and is a personal attack. Apologising (which comes off as insincere to me) doesn't mean you didn't attack the user. Here the message seems "sincere" but the edit summary is hostile. Your conversation continues here, this is another big attack, talk page conversations are not private. This threat is going too far, and it taints your further attempts at civil talking here. This is just getting fairly rediculous. I appreciate that at first you were simply asking a question, and I admit that I don't know why Schumin didn't answer you, I will ask him. However the attack edits that I have highlighted above are not acceptable. Clearly Schumin didn't want to discuss things with you, why I cannot as of yet speculate, and your manner of attacking him, and repeatedly asking him more and more patronisingly can only appear disruptive and uncivil. I'm going to ask Schumin why he didn't answer you to begin with, but even if he was being uncivil by not asking, you have been equally if not more so. That's my take on it anyway. I'll ask Schumin about it and see what he says. If it turns out he had no reason to begin cutting off your question then that changes things. I'll get back to you. SGGH speak! 21:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I copy this from the blocking admins talk page:

This is the latest incarnation of a user who had previously been blocked indefinitely as User:Orrelon, and had also been blocked as 86.40.217.70. This particular individual seems to have no other use for Wikipedia than to harrass me, as far as I can tell. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am therefore declining your block request. You can file another request if you so wish as it will most likely bring a different admin (I personally don't get involved twice because I won't remain impartial). SGGH speak! 22:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Passive-aggressive trolling doesn't require a responce. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Believe me I can understand how you might think that I was attacking him - but what I was annoyed of was of being accused of vandalism when I was asking a question. I did lose my temper somewhat, but Wouldn't you? 86.45.194.120 22:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello JS,

You certainly are an enlightened fellow. Move over Aristotle, we've got a new kid on the block! All I'm asking for is someone to look over this block, and determine whether it is just (It is not)

Accusing me of passive aggressiveness is most uncivil. 86.45.194.120 22:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


JS,

When you ask someone a question, is the natural response not to answer it? What was passive aggressive or provocative in asking him to return my question with an answer? You have no right to arbitrarily decline the request, especially since someone else was researching it. 86.45.194.120 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No rule requires that anyone responds to a question. Also, there is a long standing precedence that a user is permitted to remove comments from his/her own talkpage without comment.
My closure wasn't arbitrary. I checked your contributions and your completely unacceptable behavior on someone else's talkpage lead me to believe that it would continue if unblocked. With your behavor here on your talk page, I feel vindicated.
Your behavior was trollish. If you continue to edit like this in the future you will be re-blocked over and over. If you behave nice and remain civil you will have a happy experience here. Feel free to respond in 3 days. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

let me know, thanks buddy

I am surprised at this. I asked someone impartial to respond. I have been left with a sour taste in my mouth after this encounter. And I am not 'Orrelon' 86.45.194.120 22:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "My reasons are this:

I am not Orrelon, which seems to be the source of my block.

The process of interrogating Schuminweb for his reasoning for blocking me was deeply flawed, because the people asking the questions were in the proverbial bed with him.

All I did was ask a question; he ignored me, and that defies Wikipedias assume good faith and civility policies."

Decline reason: "No...just a small perusal of your contributions are reason enough. — Jmlk17 23:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.


Ooh, you lot are something, an unspeakable collective evil, comparable to the Khymer Rouge in an online sense. The complete disrespect for analytical, critical thought; you are prepared to line up in mindless solidarity with Herr Schumin - Well no more. Your days are numbered. When my block ends, I will take this matter to the highest level - to Jimbo Wales if needs be. 86.45.194.120 23:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "No-one is giving me a fair hearing. No-one is intelligently countering my arguments. Are you all snivelling imbeciles? I mean, I know Citizendium claims you are village drunks in terms of intelligence levels, but this is almost a pardoy of itself."

Decline reason: "Incivility isn't going to help you get unblocked. —[[Animum | talk]] 23:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Please do not add another unblock request. Take the next couple of days off to cool down first. The block is only 3 days, so cool off a bit, and then you are welcome back. Jmlk17 23:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)