Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bshanvy (talk | contribs) at 13:04, 18 March 2008 (→Unblock request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

—slakr 11:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Rachel63 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I edit Korean articles because I am Korean. I said why this is ridiculous already. Lots of people were edit warring. Equazion did 3 reverts the same day I did. He was supporting the other editors on that page. In four months I agreed with bsharvy twice. I quit this site.

Decline reason:

You are not asking for an unblock and you are not addressing the reason you were blocked. — Yamla (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (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.

I did two reverts, 5 hours apart from each other. You did 4 reverts all within 1 hour, each time reverting a different person who disagreed with you. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:27, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't. One of my reverts was because Misplaced Pages automatically undid mine thinking it was vandalism. I followed the instructions, and it said to redo my edit, so I did. I showed your edits in the report. You made 3 or 4 edits in one day.Rachel63 (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the one I mean: 09:01, 12 March 2008 Anti-Americanism‎ (Undid revision 197678878 by ClueBot (talk)) I think you know this perfectly well because it says "ClueBot" right in Edit summary. Rachel63 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are putting back wrong information into the article:

"In Japan and South Korea, much anti-Americanism has focused on the presence and behavior of American military personnel, aggravated especially by high-profile cases of sexual assaults on locals by U.S. servicemembers" Objecting to CHILD RAPE by Americans is not anti-American. Also, that sentence is POV.

This is SO ridiculous. Rachel63 (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, 3 edits in 1 hour, each time reverting someone else who disagreed with you. Same deal. 3RR isn't a definite line, it just means don't engage in revet wars. You're supposed to discuss things on the talk page, which you didn't seem to do at all that day. I'm sure I made 3 or 4 edits in one day, but they weren't reverts. There are some articles where I've made 30 edits in one day. Nothing wrong with that. About the removed content, I'm sure some people are anti-American for those reasons. It's one of the many possibilities for this very subjective topic. Bsharvy was doing the same thing, removing things he insisted didn't fall under the topic of anti-Americanism, regardless of the fact that anti-Americanism doesn't have so clear a definition that we can exclude certain possible uses. And that one sentence is not all your edit removed. Your edit removed a lot more content -- evidenced by ClueBot thinking it was vandalism. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:48, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

PS If you're quitting this site, why do you care whether or not you're blocked? That doesn't seem like the best thing to say in an unblock request. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:51, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Rachel63 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What do you mean I'm not asking to be unblocked. I thought that's what the unblock template was for. I am asking to be unblocked. I don't know the reason I was blocked. I edited one article that bsharvy edited and I commented on one other article that he edited. slakr thinks that means I'm the same person. It's all just "circumstantial evidence" that some admin thinks is enough. How can I address that? The fact is, it's wrong. What am I supposed to say? The "circumstantial evidence" isn't enough! I don't even have an opinion on that, because OBVIOUSLY I know. This is ridiculous. What can I say that would change someone's mind?? Rachel63 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The evidence that you are a sockpuppet seems strong enough to block. But as you've quit Misplaced Pages anyway, it's a moot point.— FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:05, 17 March 2008 (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.

Rachel63 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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=OBVIOUSLY if I am requesting to be unblocked I haven't quit this site for real. I made that comment a week ago because I was mad. Why am I being invited to request an unblock if there is nothing I can say that will convince anyone?? You have this "circumstantial evidence" that you say is enough, and all you do in response to anything I say is repeat that the "circumstantial evidence" is enough. '''What can I say to change someone's mind?''' If the answer is '''absolutely nothing''', then stop telling me there is something--and stop pretending this is fair. ] (]) 08:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}  |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=OBVIOUSLY if I am requesting to be unblocked I haven't quit this site for real. I made that comment a week ago because I was mad. Why am I being invited to request an unblock if there is nothing I can say that will convince anyone?? You have this "circumstantial evidence" that you say is enough, and all you do in response to anything I say is repeat that the "circumstantial evidence" is enough. '''What can I say to change someone's mind?''' If the answer is '''absolutely nothing''', then stop telling me there is something--and stop pretending this is fair. ] (]) 08:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}  |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=OBVIOUSLY if I am requesting to be unblocked I haven't quit this site for real. I made that comment a week ago because I was mad. Why am I being invited to request an unblock if there is nothing I can say that will convince anyone?? You have this "circumstantial evidence" that you say is enough, and all you do in response to anything I say is repeat that the "circumstantial evidence" is enough. '''What can I say to change someone's mind?''' If the answer is '''absolutely nothing''', then stop telling me there is something--and stop pretending this is fair. ] (]) 08:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

FYI for anyone interested, the original discussion can be found @ User_talk:Bsharvy#Sockpuppetry_case. --slakr 03:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, rachel, if you quit this site, an unblock shouldn't be necessary. That's why the admin said you weren't asking for an unblock. You seemed to just be expressing some final thoughts. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:21, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Rachel: can you please explain this edit? Given Bsharvy's propensity toward personal attacks, it would seem that your style of dealing with editors with whom you disagree is also very similar. --slakr 17:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

He made me mad because he wasn't honest. Why don't you mention almost all my comments where I don't make personal attacks? Why are you picking on my one negative comment when everybody else on that Talk page was making lots of negative comments? When is my request going to be responded to? I made it days ago. Rachel63 (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You expect people to ask you to explain your positive comments? Why aren't you bringing up any of the comments Slakr ever made where he wasn't complaining about people's personal attacks? When complaining and asking for an explanation, people will tend to only bring up the bad. It's good that you have lots of good comments in your history too, but that will in no way excuse personal attacks, even if they're rare. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:40, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

NO, I don't expect people to "explain" them. I expect people to consider them when making pronouncements about my "style." I made one personal remark the whole time I was on wikipedia, and suddenly slakr says I have a style of making personal attacks. That seems to be slakr's style. I edit one article that bsharvy edited (besides a comment on a Talk page) and slakr says we have articles in common and are the same person. I think slakr needs to learn something about logic. Rachel63 (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you don't know Slakr's "style". He's an admin, and you generally don't become an admin by making unfounded accusations. As far as your style of handling disputes, we don't see you engaging in discussion very often. One of the few times that you did, you made a personal attack. One of the times when you didn't, you engaged in a revert war (while everyone else was talking the issue out). Whatever your style is, it doesn't look good. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:54, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

With more than due respect (due respect would be rude): She knows slakr's style the same way he knows hers. Your authority-worship predictably swallows slakr's accusations without question while compulsively launching half-baked attacks on others. Some don't brown-nose so eagerly. I admire your sincerity, not to mention logic, in suggesting Rachel63 engaged in an edit-war--with no one, because "everyone else was talking". Damn, that's thoughtful. --Bshanvy (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No she doesn't. Her only experience with him comes from this block. Yes everyone else was talking. Some made reverts, but only one per customer. Rachel did it 4 times, reverting everyone else. And you're a(nother) sock of a blocked user, so what are you even doing here. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:36, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

His only experience with her comes from this block. --Bshanvy (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. His complaints comes from looking at her contribs. Her complaints come purely from his reaction to her situation. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:46, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

What are you, a nerd? Looking at contribs isn't an experience with someone. Slakr's style is shown by what slakr has done. Even your lying is unoriginal. Nobody was "talking it out." Not only was the article in dispute, but some geniuses (like you) were disputing whether we were disputing. It was a non-effort at consensus . --Bshanvy (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Temporary Wikipedian userpages
• Requests for unblock