User talk:BlindMoose

Your recent edits to Derek Smart

I refer this section of the recent ArbCom ruling to your attention. Since you are, so far, a Single-Purpose Account, this ruling enjoins you from reverting the article. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assert that BlindMoose's second edit summary "→Current projects Ben Kuchera's comment does not pass WP:BLP & WP:RL. Please read the ArbCom decision before reverting this change." indicates prior knowledge of the ArbCom ruling. --ElKevbo 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like everyone else, I have read the ArbCom ruling. I've had my a/c for several months before this. Just because I don't edit other articles doesn't mean that my sole interest is in this article. You folks want to misuse the ArbCom ruling to push an agenda. An agenda which was the direct cause of the original problems with this article. And please take this stuff to the talk page (where it can be discussed) and out of my user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindMoose (talk • contribs) 11:04, March 12, 2007

By definition, you are a single-purpose editor. It's not a subjective or negative description - it simply describes your editing history. And thus your edits to the article in question fall under the ArbCom ruling that you not revert edits. Further, you indicate clear knowledge of the prohibition against reverting edits to that article. I'm not sure what there is to discuss.

Further, your accusations that we are "push[ing] an agenda" is out of line, uncivil, and not appreciated. I offer the friendly observation that you might want to rethink your actions and contributions here in Wikipedia before you find yourself blocked or banned. --ElKevbo 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not going to argue with you or anyone here. Instead, I have filed a complaint on WP:AN/AE

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not Supreme Cmdr and there is no reason why I have been blocked. This admin who blocked me is taking a heavy handed approach and needlessly blocking anyone who seems to disagree with editors in this particular Derek Smart page. He has been involved in such wanton blocks before that didn't solve anything other than to spark an ArbCom case which outcome is now being ignored by the editors and Steel359 is supporting this. I have not done anything which would warrant a block of my account. Nor is there any proof or evidence that I am this person I am being accused of being. He seems to have also removed all my talk posts which explain my edits. I had previously filed a complaint on WP:AN/AE and he also went and removed my post from there. This is a violation of Wiki policy

Decline reason:

Whether or not you are Supreme Cmdr, this account is clearly a single-purpose account and as such, may not revert any edit made to the article, Derek Smart. See the ARBCOM decision. --Yamla 17:31, 12 March 2007 (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.