From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
e=mc2
[edit] Invitation
- Thanks for the invitation back, but when the ship is sinking you get in the lifeboat. Wikipedia is doomed as a serious intellectual enterprise, for the reason explained on my user page. John FitzGerald (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked this account as established only to promote drama. Tom Harrison Talk 18:17, 21 November 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: "I am not an SPA. From time to time, I have discussed matters involving people I did not know in order to smooth things out in WP. This is administrator abuse because the discussion on WP:AN is whether blocking to obtain advantage in an edit dispute is abusive. Nobody has said it is not abusive. I am not picking on a specific admin. I am a teacher experienced in conflict resolution. Please unblock me. I am thinking of preparing a planning lesson about wikipedia and to see if there is accountability, such as in unblocking. --------By Admin/User:Tom Harrison's actions, he acts like admin have no accountability. The discussion is whether certain behavior is clearly abusive. I said certain ones are and certain ones aren't. He is saying "shut the fuck up" I sentence you to life imprisonment on wikipedia. This is not a lesson that students should be exposed to."
Decline reason: "I agree wholeheartedly with Tom's block. You are clearly not here to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, and your experiments in conflict resolution are not welcome. — Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:31, 21 November 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.
It's a project to write an encyclopedia, not an experiment in conflict resolution. You seem uninterested in actually adding to the encyclopedia, so I think you would do better to peruse your goals elsewhere. Tom Harrison Talk 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Right now, Tom, the discussion on AN is meaningless because the key portions have be reverted away. Like I said, some of the listed behavior is abusive and some is not. Why are you so afraid of discussion and resort to heavy handed indefinite blocking.
I am not a fighter. If you want to block me for 8 hours, I accept it. Forever, is too much and abusive.Uetz (talk) 18:31, 21 November 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: "Why indefinite? This is clearly abusive because even vandals get blocked for only 31 hours. There is a discussion on AN. Nobody is calling anyone names. Nobody is calling anyone abusive. Yet an admin does not like the discussion that it is possible that admin can be abusive so he bans someone. How can you defend that? The other thing is that admin who frequent the unblock board rarely unblock. In fact don't they come to prove they have the gun? I hope not"
Decline reason: "The account seems to be a sockpuppet of an existing user, possibly a blocked one (as evidenced by a majority of your edits). Request to unblock denied. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:42, 21 November 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.
