User talk:Diogotome

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).

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

Request reason:

Prodego, could you please clarify the reason for my block? Diffs would be nice. Thanks --Diogotome (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cited an essay and "NPA" as a reason to block me.

Now a fellow admin told you I made no "PA"[1].

Please compare my observation with Eric's "Ku Klux Klan" comment. Why did you block me, but not him for that PA? I don't want you to block him, I'm just pointing out the double standard.

More importantly, why did you block me indefinitely without even giving me a warning first? You also didn't notify me of my block. You didn't give me instructions for requesting an unblock. Thanks.--Diogotome (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Showing up with zero previous edits and jumping right into an ANI discussion with a personal attack pretty much guarantees an immediate block, and doesn't warrant a warning. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:53, 5 June 2013 (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.

Personal info for those who want to add me on Facebook. --Diogotome (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice some comments about myself. I use my real name, so there is no reason to pretend that I am trying to hide who I am. I registered this account way back in 2010 (much sooner than Dany). Although I asked my brother to teach me how to edit Wikipedia, (and help me,) I am still an independent person. Please save yourselves from the embarrassment of wrong accusations. Could some admin please confirm that I registered this account using my email diogofact@hotmail.com? Then use that email, go to Facebook, and see my real name there. Thanks. ~ Diogotome (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if some admin could unblock me, or tell me why I deserved to be indefinitely blocked. Thanks --Diogotome (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If no admin is willing to address this, do I have to write an appeal email to the arbitration committee? I'm really not sure what to do. I guess I'll get some sleep.--Diogotome (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jpgordon, but could you please provide a diff and explain what exactly in my comment constitutes a "personal attack"? Admin Black Kite wrote: "I don't see an NPA there (indeed, I agree with what they said, even if they phrased it bluntly...)" How can a difference of opinion even merit a block? Any way forward?--Diogotome (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jpgordon, do you plan on replying to my questions, or are you going to do what the blocking admin did and just ignore me, in the hopes that I stay blocked forever? Time for me to write to ArbCom? --Diogotome (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you because you created a new account solely to make negative remarks about another editor. The threshold of 'personal attack' is lower, because the intention of the remark as an attack is made clear by the throwaway account. Comments that may be permissible under your main account are unacceptable if you feel the need to create a throwaway account to make them. Prodego ^talk 19:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my only account. How could it be a "throwaway account" if I created it in January 2010? Have you been paying any attention at all??? Please unblock me now that you realize your mistake. --Diogotome (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your comment suggesting that I "created a new account solely to make negative remarks about another editor" shows just how irresponsible you are. I would have never expected to see such a fraudulent statement coming from an administrator. (I guess my "new account" is three and a half years old. Wow...) You decided to block me indefinitely without apparently even checking when I had created my account, or seeing if I had made any previous edits in other Wikipedia Projects. Do you not realize just how serious your block is??? You claim that I made a "personal attack", but never backed it up. Another admin said it was not a personal attack. Even if it had been one, and it wasn't, you should still not have blocked me even for a day. According to Wikipedia policy, In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. Yet you gave me no warning, and blocked me not just for a day, but indefinitely. Do you really think my comment was in any way as "severe" as a death threat? Really? I wrote an email to ArbCom, though I have not sent it yet. If you unblock me, maybe I won't have to waste their time with this incident and with your irresponsible conduct. Are you going to unblock me or is your intention to keep me blocked forever? Please tell me. --Diogotome (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego, do you understand the mistake you made? Or are you going to pretend you made none? I have to know, as I don't particularly enjoy being indefinitely blocked. I have already told you that this is my only account, I have it since January 2010 (meaning, for over three years), and I have used it to create an article I like in the past. Just the fact that I am asking to be unblocked should show that this is not a "throwaway account", as you very irresponsibly and mistakenly asserted. Please do the right thing, unblock me, and move on. You don't even have to apologize. The longer you make me wait, the more abusive your block becomes. --Diogotome (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, either you revert the block yourself, in good faith, or I will have to appeal to ArbCom. I doubt that they will think my comment was worthy of an indef block. Note that your abusive block was clearly against policy, you gave me no warning, ignored the admin who agreed with my comment and said it was no PA, you made baseless accusations against me, based your abusive block on the false assumption that my account (created in 2010) was a "throwaway account", and indefinitely blocked me for that. Time to end this joke, don't you think?--Diogotome (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego, as you continue to make edits on other pages, on much less urgent issues, and refuse to address your false assumptions and mistake explained to you above, I have no choice but to appeal to ArbCom and waste their time because of your irresponsible conduct. I will email them, and send you a copy. Regards --Diogotome (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When your first edit on Wikipedia is to the Administrator's Noticeboard making negative remarks about another editor, you will be blocked. This is not behavior consistent with a new editor, which means this is not your main account, and since it is being used nefariously this means it is a sockpuppet SPA. I have not blocked your main account (yet). Prodego ^talk 23:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i) Do I need to cite you all the much more "negative" comments that were made at the same thread by other editors, whom you did not block? Per which Wikipedia policy do you say that you can block me just because my criticism was the first edit I made on a given Wiki? Oh, right, you just made it up. Please cite policy. ii) This is my main (and only) account. Sorry, I have never claimed that I am a "new editor". That is your (mistaken) assumption. I created this account in January 2010, and was already editing as an IP back then. It was also your assumption that my account is a "throwaway account", something that is outright false. Your false assumptions are worth what they are worth (that is, nothing). Have you even bothered to look at the article that I created on the Portuguese Wikipedia, cited above? No, you haven't. You said that I had "created a new account" just to make that comment, ignoring the fact that my account was created three and a half years ago. It is not my fault that you were too lazy to check when I had created my account, too lazy to check my edits on other Wikis, and too lazy to get your facts straight before indefinitely blocking me. You insist on your mistakes despite all the presented evidence, so there is no way for me to have a logical discussion with you.--Diogotome (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese translations (per request)

Olá. Obrigado pelas suas contribuições; o seu entusiasmo é ótimo. No entanto, existem algumas regras que temos para governar como e quando imagens podem ser colocadas em artigos, e pode encontrar essas aqui. Não parece que você tenha lido ou percebido essas regras, portanto vou ter que lhe pedir para parar de adicionar imagens a artigos. Você precisa discutir com os outros editores e mostrar que percebe como as imagens devem ser usadas. Se tiver alguma questão, sinta-se à vontade para me perguntar. Percebo que o Inglês não é a sua língua materna e que portanto comunicar é difícil, e um outro editor está a procurar alguém que fale Português para ajudar. Eu tenho que o avisar que se você continuar a adicionar imagens a artigos da maneira que tem feito serei forçado a bloqueá-lo de editar. Cumprimentos Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leu o que está acima Vinícius18 antes de adicionar imagens novamente?Moxy (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, please copy/paste the above translation to inform the user, instead of using Google Translate (bot translations really are incomprehensible). If you need me to translate other warnings, just tell me so; no need to block that user just because he doesn't understand English well.--Diogotome (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basalisk, you just blocked that user indefinitely. Why did you not use my explanation in Portuguese first, as requested, to make him understand that he needed to stop adding pictures? Is blocking people indefinitely that much easier than doing a simple copy/paste? Jesus.--Diogotome (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, blocking a user "because they don't understand" is unfortunate but sometimes necessary. Secondly, I blocked him indefinitely, not permanently. If this can be sorted out on his talk page and he demonstrates that he gets the picture (no pun intended) then there's no reason he can't be unblocked. The block I implemented was indefinite as opposed to fixed-term because this isn't an acute problem - this is a flaw in his behaviour which isn't transient. Finally, whilst another editor requested a Portuguese speaker to help in discussion because his English isn't great, he certainly has good enough English to understand a basic instruction as simple as "do not add any more pictures to articles". He even implied in further messages directed at me that the reason he carried on adding images was not because he didn't understand what I'd said to him, but because he was frustrated at the editors he was in dispute with. Copy/paste wouldn't have solved the problem. The block has. Go ahead and talk to him on his talk page; beat out the disagreement with him yourself and when he understands then he can be unblocked. Otherwise there's nothing left to do. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although you citing an essay as a justification for an indef block does not impress me, at all, I can at least thank you for taking the time to reply. Needless to say, I would like to "talk to him on his talk page", but unfortunately I myself am also indefinitely blocked, so I cannot edit his talk page, or any other, for that matter, except my own.--Diogotome (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]