User talk:Axmann8

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Persistent disruptive editing with racist undertones. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a random website for you to parade your issues. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Black Kite 01:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current unblock request

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).

Axmann8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I admit that my "wow, cry more" comment was completely nonconstructive, inappropriate, and unnecessary. Not that this makes the situation any better, and not that it is an acceptable excuse, but that comment was written at a time when the thought of re-joining Wikipedia was so extremely far off in my mind that, to be honest, I don't even REMEMBER making that comment (and I'm not just saying that, I barely even remember that edit). I thank you for commending me on my endurance in this... I'm not taking the easy way out because I do want to be a contributor to the encyclopedia. The majority of my recent edits were constructive (I know that's not saying much however, I admit I overestimated the amount of recent edits I have made to the encyclopedia. I really am admitting that the "cry more" comment was 100% unacceptable and was not a good faith or constructive edit to the encyclopedia... I know it sounds like I'm begging, but I would like so much to have a chance to redeem myself on Wikipedia. I need time to commit policy to memory (I know most do not need to do this, but I am a "letter of the law" kind of guy, so I am afraid that is what needs to be done. To show that I am truly willing to redeem myself, I will willingly submit myself to a topic ban on politics (for a length of time to be determined by the appropriate person), and I stipulate that no rule on Wikipedia (especially IAR) will be appropriate to override this topic ban. I will submit myself to an all-out topic ban in order to contribute to the encyclopedia. I again submit to you that I acknowledge my "cry more" comment was 100% inappropriate and did not belong, and for that I sincerely apologize. So, in conclusion, I would please ask for my user rights to be restored, and a chance to redeem myself. For a while I shall make only spelling corrections and other obvious, factual corrections. I will be light on the more socio-centric edits until my good name is restored. Thanks for listening again, -Axmann8

Decline reason:

If you can't see why having the name of the leader of the Hitler Youth as your username is a bad idea, I'm not inclined to unblock you. I get the distinct feeling you are just trying to "cross the t and dot the i" with this unblock request, you don't actually agree that any of your previous blocks were justified. Also, you hold up your ip editing as an example that you are capable of not editing controversial political subjects, yet that is exactly what you have been doing with your ip edits. You already made promises to self-ban yourself, and you broke your word. I am not at all convinced you wouldn't do so again. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 11 November 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.

As you can see I've placed this on hold while awaiting comment from Black Kite. I also have a few other concerns that I would like addressed while we are waiting. It's been about fifteen years since I last shaved my head and put on braces and boots, but it's safe to say if we had met back then we would probably have been on two different sides of a very nasty fight. I'm telling you this so that you understand that I get what the skinhead culture is about having once been a part of it myself, albeit with a staunchly anti-racist crew. I will endeavor not to let our ideological differences interfere with how this request is handled. That being said, there is the issue of your username. We would not allow a user called BinLaden8 or Mugave8 or Stalin8 or even McCarthy8 to edit under such a name, so I would like to get your thoughts on changing it something a bit more neutral. Ideally, something not at all related to Nazism would be good. Usernames that invoke any type of ideology are not a good idea, as it adds a "point of view subtext" to any edit you make, no matter how minor. Also, you say you would voluntarily topic ban yourself. I would like you to define specifically what areas you would ban yourself from. I hope you don't mind me adding some section breaks in order to make this easier to navigate. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Axmann indefinitely mainly on the basis of this comment in the AN/I thread about whether he should actually be blocked. I think the consensus there was reasonably clear anyway. His block log doesn't give me a huge amount of hope that he could be a productive contributor, either. If he is to be unblocked, I think it'd have to be under mentorship (and also note that he was under a topic ban from political subjects). Black Kite 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't know his age, it is my impression that this user is relatively young, and it is not impossible that the user has matured since March. There were some circumstances regarding the original block that I regard as unfortunate, he was given a lot of attention which resulted in a very steep learning curve. A more calm environment would have better odds. I'd be willing to act as mentor. I do however agree that mentorship and a ban from political subjects are prerequisites. henrik•talk 07:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I would like to assume good faith here. Evading a community ban does not set a person up for success in getting unblocked. I would like to see the following before any unblock. 1. An admission from Axe of disruptive editing. 2. An admission of repeated block evasion including sockpuppeting. 3. An apology for 1 and 2. and finally the contributions made through this IP. Only then should we consider the unblock. If we decide to unblock, mentorship would be in order and some encouragement would be well placed. Good Luck Axe.--Adam in MO Talk 15:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I've also asked a few other users involved in the original block discussions to comment here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you confirm which ip you've been editing from? Based on your comments at your former mentor's page I'm assuming it's User:75.186.104.169. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed User:75.186.104.169. I asked him to confirm his IP by posting to my talk page earlier. henrik•talk 19:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I admit that I have engaged in the past (and not long before this unban request was made) in disrupting editing. However, I will admit that the only time it was intentionally disrupting was with the "cry more" comment. My past comments, like the one Bugs showed, I now know were disruptive by WP standards, however they were not meant to disrupt at the time I made them. I see now that they are disruptive and I stipulate that if I make similar comments in the future, it will be considered intentional disruption. I simply wanted to state on that part that I did not INTEND for the comments to be disruptive.

Simply to state for the record, I WAS, however, met with disdain over my skinhead userbox, although there are "Obama pride" userboxes, "masculist" userboxes, "gay pride" userboxes, and "feminist" userboxes. Those userboxes were ones I had observed before I created the skinhead one. I did feel it was unfair to make a distinction between other types of "pride" userboxes and mine. I will not recreate other "pride" userboxes as I know they are not allowed due to Wikipedia's neutral nature, but I would ask that other "pride" userboxes be met with disapproval, just to be fair.

To respond to number 2, I completely and honestly did not know that I wasn't allowed to edit from my previous IP address. I thought that my name was banned (as to prevent me from making edits to secure pages and participating in the WP community), but that I was allowed to make edits from my IP. I did, however, in one of my previous unban requests, admit that I was making edits from my IP, and I will admit that yes, I was editing from my IP. I simply thought that my IP would have been banned if I wasn't allowed to edit from it. To my knowledge, my IP hasn't change since then (it could have though, but I did not change it intentionally)

And as for what I mean by a political block, whatever the admins see as fit. I planned joining Wikipedia Project Law, and I personally do not see that as a political area (as I would only be making corrective, grammer and spelling type edits for a while, not sociocentric edits such as dictating NPOV, etc), but if the admins determine that a part of my unban will be to abstain from Project Law, I will do that as well for a time.

So yes, I admit to (and apologize for) both disruptive editing and sockpuppetry.

-Axmann8 (Talk) 22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the username? Do you have any thoughts on changing it to something not involving Nazism? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never meant for the name to have any meaning behind it, I simply thought it was a nice name name.

But, if it is mandatory that I must change my username to have user privileges restored, then yes.

However, I would prefer to keep it, if it's not much problem. I have used this username on many sites,

and it's simply easier to remember. I don't think most people even know who Artur Axmann is.

But, like I said, if it is mandatory that it be changed, I will change it.

-Axmann8 (Talk) 22:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not see why you summarily denied my unban request even though there is a user named Axmann. I've duly noted that his account is not banned. I'd like an arbcom request over this, or something. Kite has not rendered an opinion here, you were sounding like you'd compromise with me, and Henrik believes I deserve another chance. As I've repeatedly said, I DID NOT KNOW that I wasn't allowed to edit under my IP. I thought that I was allowed to edit from my IP because I wasn't in the WP community at least. I'd really like this to be reconsidered... As Henrik said, my learning curve was EXTREMELY deep as I was under intense scrutiny. It's been 6 months since I was banned. I have matured much over that period, and I would really appreciate another chance. I apologize for any edits or comments that were of offense or against policy.

Blocking me forever will not contribute to the encyclopedia at all. I question everyone here, why would I go through all this effort to simply cause trouble? If I was just in the mood to cause trouble somewhere I could go to a different website, and all of my edits can be reversed in less than a second. I think there is much to gain, and nothing to lose, from restoring my user privileges.

Finally, I will ask: is keeping me banned a true effort to improve the encyclopedia (even though I've proved above that it is not), or is it a conspiracy? OrangeMike, an administrator obviously had a conflict of interest resulting in my original ban (his userboxes show that he is very politically left, however I am politically right).

I am simply asking for fairness.

-Axmann8 (Talk) 07:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other users with "Axmann" in their name barring a blocked sockpuppet. Secondly, Wikipedia doesn't do conspiracies. If others thought OrangeMike had a conflict of interest and blocked you simply because you support the other end of the political spectrum, another admin would have intervened (and to me, it sounds like you're blaming others again). Your argument about not bothering to waste your time trying to be unblocked is also a bit flawed, since a vandal by nature wastes their time doing edits that will be reverted minutes later. I'm not an admin so I have no say in what happens, but from what I understand of this case, I believe Beeblebrox was correct in his action. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why respond here? You weren't even involved in the original block, you have no clue what happened. And also, Henrik even had serious doubt about whether my ban was fair, so please don't try to railroad me without knowing what happened. You're not an admin, an original participant, or even an interested party so how did you find this page anyway?

I'm very upset that you're referring to me as a "vandal", and Henrik will tell you that I'm nowhere near a vandal. I am simply a person who believes in fairness, and this is not fair.

other unblock requests

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).

Axmann8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been making numerous neutral, constructive edits to the encyclopedia from my IP for over 5 months now. As the nature of my original block was a political one, I would like to have my user privileges restored. Homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus.

Decline reason:

Sorry. You were blocked for disruptive editing, not political reasons. Until your unblock request addresses that issue, it will not be accepted. TN X Man 16:05, 5 November 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.

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).

Axmann8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I still hold that this unblock is not justified. I feel my block is a result of the opinions of people, not because of policy. Just because I offend someone doesn't mean I can be blocked. Wikipedia policy clearly states that this is an abuse of power for every single person supporting, endorsing, or involved in my ban. As I am dissatisfied with ArbCom's decision, I wish to appeal this block directly to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales. He is an expert on Wikipedia policy and is the appropriate person to review the block when every other method was exhausted and disputed. I wouldn't waste Jimbo's time if I didn't think I was being treated unfairly, however, it is clear that liberal bias from administrators is what caused this ban to result. I am extremely disappointed with the blatant racism against white, male Conservatives on Wikipedia. I was doomed from the start, just because of the person who I am, which is something I cannot change. I hold that my conduct here is justified, and I believe Jimbo Wales should be called upon to directly review this block. Then, and only then, will I feel that this block truly conforms to Wikipedia standards and policy. Even Henrik noted that I was greatly improving. This ban was obviously result of my userbox which did, indeed, conform to Wikipedia standards. Had the userbox never been brought up, and had I never been attacked and provoked by Baseball Bugs (who inadvertently called me a "white supremacist" [which is slander, libel, and also harassment]), I never would have made the inflammatory remarks that ultimately led to an indef block (which is highly inappropriate, since I am not vandalizing in any way. I obviously made an attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia). I was never given a chance by the editors of Wikipedia. They automatically shunned me (along with many other conservative users -- these types of blocks have been monitored very closely over the last few months, and I have seen what is going on). They cast me out and did not give me a chance. Now, probably, after all of this effort and explanation, no doubt an admin will come by and deny it without even reviewing it, with some snarky comment. Of course, doing so would only show their insecurity, and would ultimately show that they are scared that I am right.

Decline reason:

As The Cars once put it: 'It's an orangy sky/ Always it's some other guy ... It's just a broken lullaby'. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 28 March 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.

Note: As your request has been thoroughly reviewed, further unblock requests, especially repeating the same reasoning, will merely waste admin time. I've protected this talk page from further edits, because three reviews of your request is sufficient. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 March 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).

Axmann8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was entrapped into making the comments I have made. My userbox (which conformed to Wikipedia policy) was proposed for deletion, and should not have been. The entire conversation should have never occurred, as Orangemike was the one to suggest that I re-add my userbox to my page. Orangemike is indeed an administrator. If an admin suggests putting something on my page that was against Wikipedia policy, then that same administrator should have corrected the mistake. If you look at my edit history, I originally removed the userbox as "polemic", until Orangemike suggested other. I put my trust in a Wikipedia administrator, and it gets me indef banned. Interesting. That seems fair. It's complete entrapment. I get attacked mercilessly, and when I try to defend myself from untrue and unwarranted comments (such as those accusing me of white supremacy, which was neither implied or expressed. Please review the skinhead article and try to tell me that it doesn't state numerous times that racists are a lot of the time non-racist ones. I never put "I hate blacks" or "I'm a racist skinhead" on my userpage, did I? No, I did not. None other than Orangemike, the one who originally deterred me from removing the userbox (which caused the discussion at ANI), should be the one to review this block and see if it is merited. Henrik should also review this block and tell me if I have done anything "disruptive". -Axmann8 (Talk) 03:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There was pretty much a consensus to block you, indefinitely. Putting that aside, your conduct here has been extremely inappropriate. We're building an encyclopedia, and you were not. You're now blocked indefinitely and I don't see that block being overturned. If you post the same or other frivolous unblock requests again this page will be protected. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 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.

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).

Axmann8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was entrapped into making the comments I have made. My userbox (which conformed to Wikipedia policy) was proposed for deletion, and should not have been. The entire conversation should have never occurred, as Orangemike was the one to suggest that I re-add my userbox to my page. Orangemike is indeed an administrator. If an admin suggests putting something on my page that was against Wikipedia policy, then that same administrator should have corrected the mistake. If you look at my edit history, I originally removed the userbox as "polemic", until Orangemike suggested other. I put my trust in a Wikipedia administrator, and it gets me indef banned. Interesting. That seems fair. It's complete entrapment. I get attacked mercilessly, and when I try to defend myself from untrue and unwarranted comments (such as those accusing me of white supremacy, which was neither implied or expressed. Please review the skinhead article and try to tell me that it doesn't state numerous times that racists are a lot of the time non-racist ones. I never put "I hate blacks" or "I'm a racist skinhead" on my userpage, did I? No, I did not. None other than Orangemike, the one who originally deterred me from removing the userbox (which caused the discussion at ANI), should be the one to review this block and see if it is merited. Henrik should also review this block and tell me if I have done anything "disruptive". -Axmann8 (Talk) 03:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In general, making the exact same request will get you the exact same response... Unless you have something new to tell us, the answer is again, "No." Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:09, 27 March 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.

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).

Axmann8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was entrapped into making the comments I have made. My userbox (which conformed to Wikipedia policy) was proposed for deletion, and should not have been. The entire conversation should have never occurred, as Orangemike was the one to suggest that I re-add my userbox to my page. Orangemike is indeed an administrator. If an admin suggests putting something on my page that was against Wikipedia policy, then that same administrator should have corrected the mistake. If you look at my edit history, I originally removed the userbox as "polemic", until Orangemike suggested other. I put my trust in a Wikipedia administrator, and it gets me indef banned. Interesting. That seems fair. It's complete entrapment. I get attacked mercilessly, and when I try to defend myself from untrue and unwarranted comments (such as those accusing me of white supremacy, which was neither implied or expressed. Please review the skinhead article and try to tell me that it doesn't state numerous times that racists are a lot of the time non-racist ones. I never put "I hate blacks" or "I'm a racist skinhead" on my userpage, did I? No, I did not. None other than Orangemike, the one who originally deterred me from removing the userbox (which caused the discussion at ANI), should be the one to review this block and see if it is merited. Henrik should also review this block and tell me if I have done anything "disruptive". -Axmann8 (Talk) 03:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to have a long history of using Wikipedia to push your own personal political point of view. This is not what Wikipedia is for. This block is not about a single incident, but a pattern of disruptive behavior. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 27 March 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.

You aren't blocked because of the userbox. Grsz¹¹ 03:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to repeat that very clearly. You were not blocked because of the userbox, Ax; that would have been an injustice (and a display of appalling ignorance on the part of the blocking admin). You were blocked because you voluntarily agreed to abstain from political edits, and then you broke your word, more than once, with a snide citation of WP:IAR as your only "excuse" for doing so. That is what got you blocked. Don't pretend otherwise. I have gone to a great deal of effort to be as fair as possible to somebody who clearly is of a different ideology than I am, and who I suspect may be worse than that; but even we Quakers have our limits. This community gave you multiple chances, and you blew them all. Farewell. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's bull, and you know it. You set me up. -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody made you say what you said or do what you did. There's nobody to blame for your own words but yourself. Grsz¹¹ 03:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on the contrary, I was provoked by Baseball Bugs. I do believe that someone has used "provocation" as an excuse before. Consistency, please. -Axmann8 (Talk) 06:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I was provoked" is a liberal's excuse. It's the "look what you made me do" game. The conservative and/or libertarian position is that you yourself are responsible for your own actions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:57, 28 March 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).

Axmann8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This unblock is not justified. I feel my block is a result of the opinions of people, not because of policy. Just because I offend someone doesn't mean I can be blocked. Wikipedia policy clearly states that this is an abuse of power for every single person supporting, endorsing, or involved in my ban. As I am dissatisfied with ArbCom's decision, I wish to appeal this block directly to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales. He is an expert on Wikipedia policy and is the appropriate person to review the block when every other method was exhausted and disputed. I wouldn't waste Jimbo's time if I didn't think I was being treated unfairly, however, it is clear that liberal bias from administrators is what caused this ban to result. I am extremely disappointed with the blatant racism against white, male Conservatives on Wikipedia. I was doomed from the start, just because of the person who I am, which is something I cannot change. I hold that my conduct here is justified, and I believe Jimbo Wales should be called upon to directly review this block. Then, and only then, will I feel that this block truly conforms to Wikipedia standards and policy. Even Henrik noted that I was greatly improving. This ban was obviously result of my userbox which did, indeed, conform to Wikipedia standards. Had the userbox never been brought up, and had I never been attacked and provoked by Baseball Bugs (who inadvertently called me a "white supremacist" [which is slander, libel, and also harassment]), I never would have made the inflammatory remarks that ultimately led to an indef block (which is highly inappropriate, since I am not vandalizing in any way. I obviously made an attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia). I was never given a chance by the editors of Wikipedia. They automatically shunned me (along with many other conservative users -- these types of blocks have been monitored very closely over the last few months, and I have seen what is going on). They cast me out and did not give me a chance. Now, probably, after all of this effort and explanation, no doubt an admin will come by and deny it without even reviewing it, with some snarky comment. Of course, doing so would only show their insecurity, and would ultimately show that they are scared that I am right.

Decline reason:

If you want to appeal to Jimbo, then email him. We're not your messengers. Note, however, that he's stated he generally won't overrule ArbCom. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:30, 6 September 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.


Home	Talk	About me	Awards	eMail	Subpages	Contributions	My ? Page	Voting Record	My Scripts	Useful Links

The date is: November 10, 2024

Please put your signature on additions to this page.

Note: If you talk to me in a threatening, biting, crass, sarcastic, violent, angry, or

negative manner, I will ignore you. Remain civil or your comments here will have

no meaning whatsoever to me, will be formally stricken from the record, treated

as a comment that was never made, will be removed, and will and will always be,

in every application, negated and revoked. Thank you.

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).

Axmann8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for almost a year now with no rational justification. My deciding block was initiated by User:OrangeMike, who had a complete conflict of interest, and being told inaccurate things, such as "Not here to improve an encyclopedia" (which isn't true), and "racism" (also not true)

Decline reason:

You might want to remember that we can actually view your entire set of contributions - and that OrangeMike did not block you, right? Let me quote from this post of yours: I am a skinhead, and proud of it. If I cannot declare it in my personal page, frankly, I'd rather not be a part of a website that refuses constitutional concepts. Unblock requests must address your behaviour, and a little understanding of the rights of an corporation vs individual rights would help too. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:10, 10 April 2010 (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.

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).

Axmann8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have matured and grown to be, generally, a better person since my last block (which occurred 1 year and 5 months [a total of 17 months] ago). As such, I would
like to be considered under the standard offer. I have spent much time thinking about the consequences for my actions, and, looking back, I firmly believe that
those consequences were justified, and my behavior immature and irrational. I promise, and guarantee, the abusive actions I have taken in the past will never
happen again. I would very much like to make constructive contributions to, and be a part of Wikipedia again. As previously stated, I would like to be considered
for the standard offer, meeting and exceeding all three requirements for consideration under the offer. I would, without a doubt, sincerely appreciate the consideration
of this offer.

-Sincerely, Axmann8.

Decline reason:

After looking into the history here, I can see that you are formally community banned from Wikipedia (see discussion here). You will need to have another editor start a community discussion to reverse this; you lost me at "why would I use a mexican username? I'm a skinhead. I wouldn't care use a trash language". I really don't see how you've 'matured' in the four months since your last complete denial of all wrong doing. Kuru (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2010 (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.

You're already aware that you cannot remove previously-declined unblock requests while blocked - care to re-add them? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by myself. I'll let someone else decide (I'm not around enough to deal with the consequences) but I hope someone will consider unblocking this account now that we have a sincere unblock request. It can be re-blocked if the user's behavior hasn't improved. -- Luk ^talk 10:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, Bwilkins; mistake on my part. -Axmann8 (Talk) 13:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be quite a bit of other unblock requests specific to this block as well. I've restored those for you. Kuru (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Kuru. As stated above in my unblock request, I fully admit and take responsibility for my past actions. That said, I have matured quite a bit and have waited for over a year before editing Wikipedia again. I believe (and hope others agree) that people can change, and do change. I can tell everyone, without a doubt, that I have changed for the better. -Axmann8 (Talk) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to change and come back?

I didn't see any traction with your last un-block request. If you are sorry for what you have done and are willing to come back with out being disruptive I would like to help you out. But YOU have to own YOUR actions. The community will want to see YOU disavow specifically your entrapment claims and distance yourself from your claims of persecution. Are you willing to do this?--Adam in MO Talk 17:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]