| Revision as of 21:48, 13 April 2008 editJohn Smith's (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,813 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:49, 13 April 2008 edit undoSupergreenred (talk | contribs)88 edits John Smith is not welcome here.Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| {{unblock|I opposed an admins massive changes after he locked the article to make changes himself. I did not violate any policy. When I pointed out his abouse he blocked me under spurious reason, singling me out when others have reverted, too. This is unfair. I should not be blocked. This admin has been abusing his admin powers to gain a content advantage on the article. Shame.}} | {{unblock|I opposed an admins massive changes after he locked the article to make changes himself. I did not violate any policy. When I pointed out his abouse he blocked me under spurious reason, singling me out when others have reverted, too. This is unfair. I should not be blocked. This admin has been abusing his admin powers to gain a content advantage on the article. Shame.}} | ||
| I would like to point out that this user has been removing comments from his talk page. I warned him about breaking 3RR and he reverted anyway, then removed my warning. I then told him he would have been blocked for a 3RR vio in any case and that he should cool off. Again he removed it. | |||
| Furthermore, the admin did not lock the page so that he could edit it. He locked it to stop an edit-war. Another admin locked it because after the lock was removed, it was continued again. The second lock was removed after another user had an arb-enforcement report concluded. I don't see what William has done improperly. | |||
| Even if this block was not quite correct, I think Super should be blocked for edit-warring. ] (]) 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:49, 13 April 2008
Long time anon user finally registered.
State terrorism and the United States
Re State terrorism and the United States. Please *don't* re-insert the deleted material, this is liable to get viewed as tendentious editing - this page is too close to page protection as it is. This article is in desperate need of trimming and re-focussing. Re-adding material that should be in sub-articles is not helping William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please keep this on the article talk page. I have stated by objections there and aritrary mass deletions without time for discussion or consensus is worng. Also, you have abused your admin powers by editing the article to your preferences after you had locked it. If you disagree we can take this to ANI?Supergreenred (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well you can't at the moment because as I warned you, I've blocked you for tendentious editing William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is clear admin abuse, and I will now work to have you desysoped, for this blatent abuse of your admin powers. You locked the article, then made edits to change the content, and now you block an opponent that you are involved in a content dispute with. Your "tendentious" editing is what you have done, not me. This block is baseless and trumped up. A clear case of abuse. I will apeal this to all admins and Jimbo, and have your conduct here reviewed, unless you recind this unjust block that is aimed soely at giving you a content advantage.Supergreenred (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Supergreenred (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I opposed an admins massive changes after he locked the article to make changes himself. I did not violate any policy. When I pointed out his abouse he blocked me under spurious reason, singling me out when others have reverted, too. This is unfair. I should not be blocked. This admin has been abusing his admin powers to gain a content advantage on the article. Shame.Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I opposed an admins massive changes after he locked the article to make changes himself. I did not violate any policy. When I pointed out his abouse he blocked me under spurious reason, singling me out when others have reverted, too. This is unfair. I should not be blocked. This admin has been abusing his admin powers to gain a content advantage on the article. Shame. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I opposed an admins massive changes after he locked the article to make changes himself. I did not violate any policy. When I pointed out his abouse he blocked me under spurious reason, singling me out when others have reverted, too. This is unfair. I should not be blocked. This admin has been abusing his admin powers to gain a content advantage on the article. Shame. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I opposed an admins massive changes after he locked the article to make changes himself. I did not violate any policy. When I pointed out his abouse he blocked me under spurious reason, singling me out when others have reverted, too. This is unfair. I should not be blocked. This admin has been abusing his admin powers to gain a content advantage on the article. Shame. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}