User talk:Uponleft

Warning

Per arbitration committee ruling, disruptive single purpose accounts on the St Christopher article may be banned. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one being disruptive, you are going counter to other editors that have already established consensus on the talk page for that article. Read the talk page and discuss instead of just adding and reverting. Uponleft (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't do anything wrong! I reverted JzG's edits because he was adding information that was against the talk page consensus for the article. The editors of the article, including another administrator had already decided that the information he added was inappropriate because it contains only primary sources. Regardless, his remedy is inappropraite, even if I was being disruptive the remedy for SPA's with regard to the SCIMD article as provided by ARBCOM is only a page block for one week, and that's only for multiple disruptive edits. An indefinitive ban from all of wikipedia is totally abusive as well as for the reason that an admin. engaged in an conflict with an article is not allowed to use admin tools against the other editor they are conflicting with. Check his block log for today, he just banned an entire group of people from wikipedia indefinetly for no good reason.

Decline reason:

Block endorsed. You have not established that JzG is in a content dispute with you; apparently he just reverted what looks like your vandalism. It is true that the ArbCom decision does not provide for indefinite blocks for disruptive single purpose accounts, but such blocks can be made under the general authority of administrators to implement the blocking policy. You are a single purpose account, clearly here to push your point of view, and probably a sock- or meatpuppet of someone else. We don't need you. — Sandstein 22:36, 12 July 2008 (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.

Blocked

I have blocked this account as a disruptive WP:SPA per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. I am absolutely sure that this is not a new experience for you. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher#Log of blocks and bans. You were subject to a 1RR restriction which you broke, we have had so many disruptive single purpose accounts whitewashing this article that I don't see any point stringing it out any longer. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have really stepped over the line. You banned an entire group of accounts that were doing nothing wrong, completely outside of the guidelines setup by the ARBCOM. You are so incredibly abusive it's hard to believe you still have admin tools. Uponleft (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the wrong answer. I blocked a group of largely inactive disruptive single purpose accounts. I tend not to leave obvious sockpuppets hanging around for a second bite at the cherry. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]