User talk:DegenFarang

Block reinstated

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for harassing other users and violating your unblock conditions [1]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  — madman 01:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

As discussed at the ANI, an interaction ban accomplishes the same thing. 99% of my problems on Wikipedia and nearly all of my blocks are from interacting with one other editor. If we were banned from interacting, this problem would go away, and Wikipedia would retain a valuable editor.

Decline reason:

I have spent some long time reading through the ANI thread and your and 2005's edits. Having done so I do not believe that you will, if unblocked, be a net positive influence here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:06, 21 February 2013 (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.

While we wait for your unblock request to be reviewed, I don't suppose you could explain (mainly for the unblocking admin's benefit) for the rationale of this revert? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I was blanking the page DegenFarang (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Seeking second opinion. You can read my reason for requesting the unblock above.

Decline reason:

Procedural. Anthony's decline above is a second opinion. You don't get to shop around until you find an admin who'll give you the response you want. Either file a better unblock request, or expect to lose your talkpage access. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:35, 21 February 2013 (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 will leave this for another admin to review, but I don't feel like we can take you at your word. It was nearly a year ago that you said I will deal with difficult situations by avoiding them. A vast majority of the problems I have had are with one user. A user who was very hostile toward me from the second I joined Wikipedia. I never got over this and indeed did stalk him and harass him for a long period of time. I will disengage completely from interacting with that user. Clearly, that was not the case. You have already had your second chance, your third chance... and so on. You want a ninth chance to prove you can exercise some self control? Do you really think it is realistic to expect that? I would suggest you consider the standard offer only maybe make it more like a year instead of six months. Maybe in that length of time you will learn to let go of this grudge and participate here in a way that is beneficial rather than disruptive. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't need any chances with an interaction ban. As soon as I violated it he would report me. I guess a year is not a long time in WikiTime but I think I did show a lot of self control. It took a year to get here again lol DegenFarang (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

One way interaction bans are rarely if ever workable, and constraining another editor to avoid you would be placing an unfair restriction on their editing because of your behaviour. As such, an indefinite block (and, given this, I think we can take out the "de") is the most equitable solution for Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not just my behavior, he's just much better at wikilawyering and I'm very bad at it. If I was as well versed in digging up old stuff and citing various policies, he would have been blocked a long time ago. DegenFarang (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And that just lost you the ability to edit this talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that pretty clearly indicated that there is no reason to continue to discuss this with you. I would repeat my suggestion to take an extended break, then try appealing to WP:BASC Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:172.6.236.155

Noting for the record that Degen has engaged in more tag edit-warring here while already blocked. Have blocked the IP and tried to express to him what a bad idea that was. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)