User talk:Retrolord
After several months of being blocked you have yet to come up with a convincing unblock request, yet you continue to engage in silly conflicts over the content of your talk page. Babysitting you is a waste of our administrative resources and so I have revoked your ability to edit this page. If you wish to appeal further you may contact WP:BASC by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Blocked indefinitely[edit] Retrolord (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: original unblock reason Decline reason: I am operating on the assumption that you want the conversation below to serve as your unblock request, in which case the answer is quite easily no. "I learned my lesson, because I didn't do it anyway" is not going to get you unblocked. You consistently engaged in various types of disruptive editing despite being repeatedly blocked for it, you endlessly wiki-lawyer when confronted about it, and you take a "battleground approach" to pretty much everything. Unless and until you can give some guarantee that all these behaviors will permanently cease you can expect to remain blocked. I would add that there is a finite number of times you will be allowed to appeal this way and given your track record I wouldn't expect a lot of leeway in that department either. If your next request is not WP:GAB compliant you should expect to lose your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 11 October 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.
Retrolord contacted me on IRC to ask me to review this unblock request. I declined (without prejudice to any other admin who wishes to review) as I did not feel that this sufficiently demonstrated that he had learnt his lesson. Note that this subsequent appeal was added after I declined, so wasn't included in my consideration of his unblock request. He followed up my decline with a statement that he "feel[s] about half the things mentioned in the block notice weren't actually problems" and that "in [his] opinion NW made about half of that up". I include these statements of his without comment, so that further admins that review his block may take them into consideration. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my unblock request user:Beeblebrox. To reiterate, I do think the block was valid and that my behaviour at the time was dreadful. Would it be possible to invoke WP:Standard Offer? I seem to meet the criteria (Although I haven't been gone for exactly 6 months), anyone have thoughts regarding this? Thanks, ★★King•Retrolord★★ 00:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013[edit]
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. Congratulations![edit]
Appeal workshop[edit]For my personal use in a future appeal I am noting this here; 1)Claims I 'spammed' the Wikimedia foundation emergency email are untrue AND irrelevant as they are off-wiki activities. This falsity was clearly mentioned to help smear my name, given that as an experienced admin NW would know that WP:BLOCK doesn't allow for sanctions based on off wiki activity. I would appreciate an explanation from User:NuclearWarfare on this point specifically 2)Claims I initiated 15 simultaneous GA reviews are untrue 3)Claims I performed GA reviews of consistently low quality are untrue, a discussion was held specifically on this point and no consensus was reached supporting the claim, the discussion was quickly hijacked with accusations of sockpuppetry and my participation in the discussion was censored 4)Claims I am a sockpuppet are untrue, and were also used to advance the 'low quality GA agenda'. This also ties in with the smearing tactics mentioned above, as the claims were proved false by consensus 5)Any attempt to highlight these points has so far been ignored, although NW did state when questioned on point 2 that he "read it somewhere else and assumed it was true". This raises questions about NW's judgement and competence. When viewed in light of the discussion at WT:GAN regarding the quality of my reviews, initiated by NW, which subsequently failed, it suggests these false claims were made to justify his erroneous block. I'll add more later, appeal work-in-progress- ★★King•Retrolord★★ 07:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC) User:NuclearWarfare is asked to explain the above points as he was the blocking admin. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 07:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013[edit]
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. |
