User talk:Mrcfjf
|
This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from using the {{unblock}} template to relay abusive messages to administrators or reposting it after having been denied an unblock by more than one admin. If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here. |
Unblock
[edit]
Mrcfjf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like my block reconsidered again. I have requested to be unblocked before and been denied, and I would like an independent reconsideration. I don't know why essjay keeps confirming my sockpuppet status and other admins just follow along using this as a reason for blocking me, but it is not fair. I believe he is abusing his power to block me because of my previous statements about ophanbot. Thank you in advance for your fair consideration. ~~mrcfjf
Decline reason:
You have already had your block reviewed by three independent administrators. Users are normally permitted at most two unblock reviews. This now looks to be admin-shopping and so this page has been protected. — Yamla 02:16, 9 March 2007 (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.
Original block
[edit]Mrcfjf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Administrator abusing power placed this block. This is to prevent dissent: it is not a legitimate block. Jimbo himself says "Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity". Blocking users for complaints does not adhear to this.
Decline reason:
Sockpuppet. see User_talk:Buttboy666 for striking similarities as well as the ANI thread. -- —Pilotguy (ptt) 16:21, 22 December 2006 (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.
Blocking
[edit]This is clearly abusive behavior by a Wikipedia administrator designed to suppress dissent. Just because someone disagrees with some Wikipedia policies does not mean that they should be blocked from editing.
This is the exchange that resulted in an administrator blocking me:
In response to your comment on my talk page, I do not believe this bot is the answer to the unsourced image problem. I think it would be better to manually check and discriminate between these images. Unjustified removal of content hurts Wikipedia by decreasing its completeness. Mrcfjf 21:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are far too many images uploaded without sources for all of them to be checked manually. There are no more than a dozen or so admins actively involved in image work on a daily basis, and that would not be enough to handle the load. The alternative to OrphanBot is eliminating local uploads and shifting all media to Commons. Chick Bowen 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with your reasoning. Just because admins are unable to deal with these images does not mean legitimate images need to be deleted by an out of control bot. The deletion of legitimate content has become the bane of Wikipedia. Mrcfjf 22:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- This user has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Buttboy666 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), confirmed by Essjay. Chick Bowen 05:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
As soon as I complained about behavior of a Wikipedia supported Bot and policies in general, I was immediately blocked. There was no response or discussion.
See this thread at AN/I for a more complete explanation. Looks like a checkuser block, but I'll leave this up for at least one more admin to look at. Luna Santin 09:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for looking into this. It just doesn't seem fair to me. Mrcfjf 14:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Unblock request
[edit]I would like to clearly state that I am not a sockpuppet for buttboy666. I do not like being treated unfairly and being called a sockpuppet when I am not. If someone could please help me by opening a case with the member advocates and a request for dispute resolution I would really appreciate it. I cannot post to those pages.
Mrcfjf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to appeal the decision on my block by Pilotguy. I would like to use the dispute resolution process if that is necessary to become unblocked. I do not know where the correct place to do that is, but since I can't edit any pages except this one I suppose this is the correct place. Please see my talk page for a history of this block. I do not feel this block is fair. Thank you for your consideration
Decline reason:
Sockpuppet, confirmed by Essjay. Mr. Darcy talk 03:15, 23 December 2006 (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.
Additional unblock request and request for assistance
[edit]Mrcfjf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to be unblocked, but the reason for this additional request is that I would like to use dispute resolution and want assistance from the member advocates. However, I am blocked so I cannot access these pages. It is very unfair to deny me access to these services and continue this block.
Decline reason:
Your block has been reviewed a few times, and I agree with them. You can use the {{helpme}} tag as you are to contact other users, or you may use the E-mail this user button on the side of a specific user's userpage. -- HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:10, 23 December 2006 (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.
Unfortunately, I think that you will have to wait out the time that you are blocked. It looks like that you have tried to appeal the decision and it has failed. I hope that you are able to learn from whatever offense led to you being blocked so this does not happen again. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 19:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)