User talk:RadishLover
Free these people
[edit]
Edit warring has a time and place. As administrators, you cannot jump the gun. You must ask the question that the founders of Wikipedia have set forth: "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too"
I have seen no such discussion take place. Edits were made back and forth with administrators jumping in like hot-heads, instead of discussing/warning. These were not acts of vandalism. Just reinstate people, and leave them alone. Find someone with a level-head to do the administration.
TopherKRock
[edit]
I am friends with TopherKRock. He was actually right about the fair use of the White Plains logo. We have served together and he is an avid wikipedian. It would be a shame if a biased admin blocked him from working on wikipedia.
He felt so proud that he could fix an article about an army unit in Georgia. Please don't take that away from him. He really wants to help out your project so much. Maybe the other people could have sent "talks" his way before just editing his pages. I thought that is how wikipedia works, by community involvement.
Undo the block against him; it should never have taken place (WP:INVOLVED). I would also ask that you lock his template so that only he can edit it. No one did their research before arbitrarily making changes. He just reverted those changes, and yet he got punished. Please keep fairness in Wikipedia. Thank you -RadishLover (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Catflap08
[edit]
I've been reviewing your blocking standards versus the application of those blocks. Catflap was not in violation of your warring policy. You are bullies and need to stop forcing yourselves upon people the way you do (User:Discospinster and User:jpgordon). Shame on Wikipedia for supporting you as administrators. You should both be banned from the site for your heavy-handed tactics.
Claiming people are edit-warring as a tactic for non-discussion is not a good enough reason to block them. Doing so makes you a monster and vilifies Wikipedia itself for condoning your actions. -RadishLover (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Unblock me
[edit]
RadishLover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not block evading, as claimed by jpgordon. Secondly, I am advocating for a friend who was blocked. Neither of those are reasons to block someone. If this is how you treat people on this site (you are acting like stubborn children) then the site loses credibility. Give people a chance, and discuss before making an edit to personal pages.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲水 08:26, 18 March 2014 (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 am most definitely neither of them. I was blocked for advocacy purposes.
- While Jpgordon is a Checkuser, he didn't indicate this was a checkuser block. Then again, the behaviour and writing style makes it clear you're at least Catflap08. We don't entertain unblock requests from sockpuppets; make the request at your main account's talk page or via email (if that account has had talk page access revoked). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
An unblock of User:Catflap08 seems unlikely at this point, as they have stated they do not intend to continue editing on Wikipedia. That aside, if your primary purpose for participating here is to harangue other users for their conduct, it does not seem extremely likely you will be unblocked either. An unblock generally hinges on the idea that the user, once unblocked, will resume participating constructively on the site, and podium-pounding and advocacy are rather explicitly not what the site is for. I must say, though, that I am kind of envious. If your idea of a "monster" is someone who, in your view, mismanages minor editing privileges on a website, you have led an astoundingly fortunate life. I quite dearly wish that something like that was what came to mind when I tried to think of what "monstrous" behavior is like. I hope that you can continue leading the sort of life where that is the worst kind of behavior you have to imagine. - Vianello (Talk) 07:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Vianello - one who steals any amount of freedom from someone is a monster. You talk from your pulpit as if you know me, yet I've seen war and tragedy. You are a child who knows nothing of life, because if you did, then you would know that blocking someone without fair reason is an assault on free speech. Blocking free speech is the first step in losing freedom. I was sent to a foreign land and have seen what people like you have done once they were in power. So, yes, you and those who ban without thought are monsters. -RadishLover (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- What freedom is being stolen? Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, as Wikipedia's a privately-owned website. Getting blocked from Wikipedia is about equivalent to being kicked out of someone's house. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- "I've seen war and tragedy." Frankly, if you think a website's administrators setting policies for it (which is, itself, an exercise of free speech) is on par with this, or, for that matter, if simply disagreeing with you is on par with this (which is literally all I've done), then I honestly don't believe you have. Apparently freedom of speech, to you, only means the freedom to agree with you. That is all I really have to say. I will be glad to review future unblock requests that assert you have plans here besides WP:ADVOCACY and soapboxing - things that Wikipedia, as an independent, private website, is well within its legally protected freedoms to decide are not welcome. You're welcome to dispute that - if, in your own words and by your own logic, you want to be a "monster". - Vianello (Talk) 00:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
RadishLover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. I was blocked for advocacy purposes, I have not damaged anyone's page and am only looking to better Wikipedia, and I'm ready to move on and contribute to articles -RadishLover (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.