User talk:DifensorFidelis

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).

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

Request reason:

I had thought I was logged in to my user account but was actually editing whiled logged out, and thus it appears as though I am committing intentional sock-puppetry. Furthermore, even if I had committed sock-puppetry, I was not properly warned or informed about the offence before being given a harsh, indefinite block. I agree to a temporary block, say for a week or two, but an indefinite block is abusive and corrupt use of power by certain administrators who fear my edits and opposing viewpoints. I had already admitted previously that I would cease so-called "personal attacks" in edit summaries.

Decline reason:

Per the note here that you deleted from your talkpage, we're not talking about one personal attack, but rather at least seven. You're going to need a more convincing explanation regarding your ability to remain civil while editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:05, 13 February 2016 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Those "personal attacks" in edit summaries were not directed at any particular user or person, so to consider them personal attacks is a bit of a stretch. In any case, nearly all of those edit summaries were done prior to being given a proper warning about such. I should also note that the reason given for the block in the template states: "Abusing multiple accounts"; nothing about comments in edit summaries. The block was instituted more for accidental "sock-puppetry" than comments in edit summaries, so my argument against being blocked for such has been completely disregarded. None of this to me justifiably warrants an indefinite block. No vandalism has been committed. I apologize for for the comments being placed in the edit summaries, but I feel I am being unfairly targeted and excessively punished because the comments may have struck a nerve with possible anti-theist biases of the administrators who blocked me. This is not a just reason for a permanent block, and I am not asking for the block to be removed entirely. I am asking for the block to be reduced to three weeks or, at most, a month. Thank you.

Decline reason:

An "indefinite" block is one that's as long as it takes you to convince us that reinstating your editing privileges will not lead to the recurrence of the issues that led to the block in the first place. As long as you try to justify your behaviour and to wikilawyer about it, you will not be unblocked. Huon (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2016 (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.

Fidei Defensor (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I just stated that I apologize for the "personal attacks" in the edit summaries, as well as the accidental sock-puppetry. I stand by what I said in the edit summaries, but I recognize that Wikipedia disproves of such "personal attacks". I assure you these will not happen again, and if attacks are made against me, I certainly hope Wikipedia will also act in such a situation. Frankly, I have reported personal attacks in the past and nothing was done by the administrators because the views of those making the attacks may have fallen in line with those of the administrators. I hope all administrators understand the concept of corruption of power. Given I have been editing and creating articles on Wikipedia for a while now, albeit with an anonymous user account, I understand the policies. I ask you again to reconsider the ban or the length of the ban. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You stand by what you said in the edit summaries? You stand by calling other editors "scum"? I don't think you're ready to return to editing just yet. PhilKnight (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2016 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I said I stand by what I said that militant atheists are indeed scum. I do not stand by saying such in edit summaries, as it is against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not supposed to censor people's personal thoughts or opinions, as long as they do not take the form of personal attacks made on Wikipedia articles. I again ask my ban be revoked as I will follow policies such as 3RR and no personal attacks when editing.

Decline reason:

This is getting us nowhere and just wasting more people's time, so Talk page access has been revoked. See WP:UTRS if you want to make another unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2016 (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.

I recommend revoking talk page access as this is going nowhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DifensorFidelis. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Katie^talk 14:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New request for unblock of me, including my preferred new account User:Veritas2016[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting that I as a person be unblocked, as it has been several months since I have accepted the reasons why the initial block was made. I assured you such behaviour would not continue, but this fell on deaf ears. I have seen other users make severe personal attacks in my years on Wikipedia who have not been even punished or warned in such a manner. This is likely due to the proven ideological bias among the corrupt cabal of administrators. Additionally, I no longer wish to use this account, and thus request that the unnecessary block on my preferred new account, User:Veritas2016, be lifted.

Decline reason:

I was considering this right up until "proven ideological bias among the corrupt cabal of administrators". Yamla (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2016 (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.

Do you honestly think that attacking the "proven ideological bias among the corrupt cabal of administrators" is going to get you unblocked? Especially when you have been blocked for, among other reasons, repeatedly making personal attacks? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you just proved with the continued denial of my appeal that, indeed, there is proven ideological bias and corruption among the cabal of administrators. When will you punish or warn other users for far worse personal attacks, such as those committed against me at the Moriscos article and talk page ?? Stop with the hypocrisy. Fidei Defensor (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM. clpo13_(talk) 15:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have had six different admins decline your unblock requests on your two accounts. Now, it could be that all six of us are indeed members of an ideologically biased and corrupt cabal, or it could be that your approach to civil interaction is lacking - I do hope you'll consider the possibility of the latter. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of corrupt, abusive and ideologically biased administrators does not merit their inappropriate actions. Most of these denied requests are from several months ago. This is all a disgusting abuse of power to continue to censor me and deny my appeals against an indefinite ban. I will appeal again. Fidei Defensor (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that his IP address has had talk page access removed for repeatedly deleting their declined unblock request. He was warned by another Admin about doing this the 2nd time he deleted it, but ignored the warning. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For repeatedly removing declined unblock requests (after having had talk page access revoked at your IP talk page previously for the same thing), you have now lost the ability to edit this talk page too - although I have honoured your apparent wish to remove your latest unreviewed unblock request. If you wish to make another unblock request, please see WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]