User talk:Hardwarz
Just to be clear: I was agreeing with you
[edit]FYI, I agree with you that the article in question is badly biased against Trump. When I said you could be quickly banned, I meant that you could be quickly banned for trying to make the article neutral. That's how Wikipedia often works. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
[[User:Anythingyouwant|, I understand, and sadly, that seems to be the way of things. Basically, whoever edits the most, argues the longest, is somehow 'right'. It's one of the reasons why I try to stay off wikipedia editing pages. But sometimes I see stuff that is soo preposterous that I have to say something. Hardwarz (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- No honest human being with high blood pressure should ever edit articles related to politics at Wikipedia. :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
May 2017
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Swarm ♠ 05:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hardwarz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If you look at the article about Comey's dismissal, you can see other users agreed with me, multiple users.....and Drmies did not like that. He asked me to provide sources/evidence of my position, and I did. The he tried to harass me further, which is when I reported him. If you look at the whole circumstances of events, it's clear that Drmies was acting in a malicious manner, and it's clear Drmies did not like the idea that I had gotten the best of him in that discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey&#Tendentious_editing . I believe user Drmies has proven that they committed actions completely unbecoming of an editor when they ask for people to detail their positions, then go to their profile and leave messages like "blah blah blah" as a response to said request. Clear cut case of malicious intent by the user Drmies. If you look at their profile, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Again You can see the clear bias this user outlines of Drmies intent and bad behavior. There's a clear pattern of tendentious editing by Drmies, and abuse of the system in order to cover it up and try to paint things differently than they are for admins like you to fall for. It's clear from the evidence listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Again that Drmies has violated the three strike rule and should instead have their editing privileges revoked permanently. Not only guilty of tendentious editing articles, but Drmies is also clearly guilty of removing solid sources in an attempt to justify their tendentious editing, which is a most grievous offense. So I not only request the block to be lifted, I also believe there is sufficient evidence for action to be taken against Drmies and urge you to take action against Drmies for their clearly on going abusive behavior and violation of wikipedia rules. Hardwarz (talk) 2:11 pm, Today (UTC+8)
Decline reason:
See WP:NOTTHEM. Also, the three revert rule says that an editor should not make more than three reverts to one page. It does not forbid a user from making one revert to three different pages. The talk page section you link to as supposed proof is about someone besides Drmies if you check the diffs cited. That you cited that as if it was some sort of proof of misdoing by Drmies is a good indication that you are just looking for whatever petty revenge you can instead of calm collaboration. Also, I don't see you citing any sources (much less professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources) at Talk:Dismissal of James Comey. In posts like this, you argue with and interpret existing sources, which is not how things work here.
If you want to be unblocked, you are going to have to acknowledge that you are the one who is with the disruptive behavior, not Drmies. You are taking messages in his talk page out of context to try to make him appear to be a villain and acting like the slightest disagreement with you is some sort of vicious slander -- that completely fails WP:Assume good faith, one of our cornerstone policies. If you continue to rail against him, your requests will not only be denied but your talk page access may even be revoked if it becomes clear that you're not capable of learning from others. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2017 (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.
Hardwarz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
First of all, he never made a good case to block me to begin with. Second, this all started with a report against him. So this is not about petty revenge....the only one out for petty revenge is Drmies because I called him out on his behavior, politely I might add. I have clearly shown that Drmies not only acted maliciously, but also did violate the three strike rule, as they did maliciously do more than 3 reverts to the same page, in separate incidences, many times, none of which even involved me, therefore that's a second step to show that it's not petty, it's unbiased proof. I believe the users behavior is further shown as being petty by leaving harassing "blah blah blah" taunt messages on my talk page, which is again, another violation of rules due to the clear intent to harass, and shows a pattern of the users behavior. There is nothing to acknowledge on my part, as my behavior has always fallen within wikipedia guidelines, and I stand by that completely. In regards to citing, well I wasn't making any editing, we were discussing in the talk page. Drmies wanted examples of tendentiuous editing and non neutral positions in the wikipedia article I was raising the issue in, and I gave him some quotes and reasoning as to why they were biased. Clearly, that's not a violation of any rules either. So that's hardly a talking point to be used against me. Hardwarz (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As you are continuing to use this talk page to attack others, and you are not addressing your own problematic approach to editing which is what got you blocked, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page too (as you were warned might happen). See WP:UTRS if you wish to make a further appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2017 (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.
Hardwarz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #18325 was submitted on May 18, 2017 09:40:23. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hardwarz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #18326 was submitted on May 18, 2017 10:32:11. This review is now closed.