User talk:Mayhemmatador

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing, including, amongst other problems: persistently adding unsourced or unreliably sourced information to articles; using deliberately misleading edit summaries; removing or refactoring other editors' comments from talk pages; stalking another editor; sockpuppetry; persistent incivility and battle-ground mentality rather than a cooperative approach; refusal to accept consensus; edit warring. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

My account should be unblocked. A review of my edits will show that I have provided references for new and interesting information that was added to existing articles. In some cases when other contributors were not satisfied with the sources I.E. Websites I made the effort find other sources and verified them bondi beach . In some cases my added content was the only referenced content on the subject knife fight . I direct your attention to my entrys on the following subjects as evidence of the solid work that I on Wiki Content, bondi beach , Knife fight , Joe Halderman and P-63 Kingcobra my additions added depth to the subjects, and in some cases P-63 Kingcobra updated material that was 9 years out of date. The sad fact is that the call for me to be blocked was made by a "stawman/sock-puppet" user:alereon account as proxy for user:jayron32 a user who attempted to and failed to threaten me, before reviewing the available content. My behavior has not been disruptive, In fact it has firm, assertive, and responsive to even handed edits p-63 kingcobra In closing, if this block is maintained Wiki will be the poorer for it. Wiki will lose out on the content, insight and references I offer, you will instead be keeping only my accusers who a review of their edits will show, seldom offer new content and spend the majority of there time revediting and passive trolling noobs. Thank you for your time. Mayhemmatador (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Looking at your contributions to the encyclopedia, I have to decide between two possibilities: you are a person who, for some reason, has a home full of five-year-old newspapers containing articles which, for some reason, were never added to those newspapers' internet archives, making good-faith and accurate edits. Or, you are a person who is amusing herself adding fake information to the encyclopedia, citing fake sources. How will I decide which is more likely? By looking at the way you interact with other users, which, in this case, is unnecessarily combative- you seem to be looking for opportunities to fight with others. I also note your username, which seems to indicate a desire to cause 'mayhem.' With that information, I decide that it is more likely that you are amusing yourself with subtle vandalism, than that you are a user interested in making the encyclopedia better. Of course, I could be wrong, but nothing I can find in your contribution history or in this unblock request would support that hypothesis. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:26, 16 April 2011 (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.

Further I must point out that the user user: JamesBWatson hardly did a review of the issue at hand. investigation of his contributions will show that he spent less then 9 minutes reviewing before sending a block notice. his contributions time markers will show he spent the proceeding hour editing his own page then within a 9 minute window saw my name and blocked it. Hardly the kind of in-depth and resposible investigation that blocking someone should require.Your Mayhemmatador (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

So let me see if I got this straight? I gave full and logical reasons for the unblock expecting a Admin to take a thoughtful look and make a reasoned decision. The result? the above admin choose to keep the block because 1) my facts were to old and from papers and 2) because my username sounded like a troublmaker. Oh well done, clap clap clap thank you for you facile judgement. In answer my only 5 year old newspaper refs were for the Bondi Beach article and they were provided after someone requested some refs other then the Australian bureau of Statistics so I back tracked to find them taking quites some time to do. Further my other entrys are all easily confirmable, and current if someone actually took the time to look and as I pointed out earlier the only referenced facts in the article up to that point! Everyones should be held to the same standard. As to my handle? are you serious? really? Well if you must know it is/was my Xbox live handle for playing Halo back in the day (check it out) and is the easiest to remember so I used it. Also my first name is Matt so there you go! I hope a the next Admin will actually take the time to read my entrys in full, look at their evolution with other edits and make a reasoned choice, and provide some real insight on their decision be it yes or no. In other words do what Admins are actually supposed to do, not use this as a chance to make some smart alec comments about someone who cant answer back. Someone please! restore my Faith in this collective! Your reason here Mayhemmatador (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

With talk page access disabled there is no reason to leave this request open. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2011 (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'm sorry that you misunderstood my reply; I tried to phrase it as clearly as I could. Since none of your sources were ones that I could check, not having access to the print versions of those newspapers, I had to base my decision primarily on your ability to interact politely and peacefully with other people. I didn't base it mainly on your username, although it was another piece of the puzzle. Even if all of your sources are entirely correct, your consistent choice to talk rudely to others would make the block appropriate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
first off, any of them can be checked currently checked google, yahoo, ask, with the appropriate key words or going to the FAA aircraft registry, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the CAF aircraft registry, The warbird resource group, NPR's Talk of the nation podcast for april 14th, and so much more. I checked them again this morning, Did you really try? or were you hoping that I actually had made them up and would go away? secondly "if all my sources are entirely correct"?! I was blocked for disruptive editing, not civility. If you wish to issue you me with a warning concerning civility feel free to do so after you have checked my correct refs and removed my block. For you to block me for uncivil behavior you would need to first warn me of the behavior and the block that I have would need to sight that as the reason for the block as uncivility not the disruptive editing that is listed and I am trying to disprove.

Third, you admit you based it in part on my username! you should have not used it at all! ever here dont judge a book by its cover? What, am I to assume that you like Jeff bridges just because your name sounds like a play on the title of one of his movies? "Another piece of the puzzle" Really? you took the time to check for my use of it on Xbox live? you must have because to put a piece into a puzzle you have to know it, otherwise you are just using what elements you have to justify a preordained judgement, Dont you think that might be the case here? If you based your decision in anyway on my username as you have admitted then you in all good concious should reverse your call. You know it and I know it and any decent Admin who you might tell about it would know it. Get real, do the review you were actually supposed to do. And finally as to speaking rudely to others, dont you find yourself a bit hypocritical here? After all, I asked for a reasoned appeal and instead you gave me at best one liners, and at worst pop-physcology in regard to my username. Do you think I would have taken the time to appeal if I wasn't serious? If I was just into vandalism I would just piss off and screw with something else. I ask you to step outside your little club of admins and lackeys and let those of us with valuble knowledge help Wiki grow. Set aside your ego, and actually look at my entrys, they add depth and foundation to subjects that were not there before. If you cannot remove your ego and do the job you volunteered for then dont darken my discussion page again. Thank you.

  • note to reviewing admin: you will find that James B watson's block specifies "disruptive behavior" this is evident in the block log. The sited arguments in the above notes are a attmept to drive the review away from what has been revealed to be a undefencible conclusion regarding my edit, sources and username, to unrelated and late raised issues.--Mayhemmatador (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to reviewing admin: you will also find that the lister on the blocking page was a "alereon" please take time to examine the ip addresses used by said user and Jayron32, Beach drifter, you will find that "alereon" is in fact a stawman to advance the actions of the other two.--Mayhemmatador (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to reviewing admin: you will find that user Beach drifter has erased large numbers of edits of mine and his own in a attempt to remove the trail of accountability and that Jayron32 was complicit.--Mayhemmatador (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to reviewing admin: you will no doubt see that fisherqueen and Beach Drifter are working in concert (check time notes) to defend a fail judgement and attempt of take a pound of flesh respectivily--Mayhemmatador (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to reviewing admin: you will find that queenfisher has admitted she based her decision in part on my user name, which is not racist, vulger, sexual and therefore not a enforcable offense.--Mayhemmatador (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to reviewing admin: you will find most important of all that all my edit refs can be sourced and that Fisherqueen has not answered if she has proofed them, but instead has moved her objection from my sources and username to instead my supposed uncivil behavior, is this really acceptable review procedure? is this the best one can hope for from our community?--Mayhemmatador (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to reviewing admin: please take the time to see that I have focused on contributing material and refs, while over 95% of the above users activities is revedits, warnings, blocks, and a attempt to defend the blocks. I have something to add to Wiki, while it appears they merely wish to control it.--Mayhemmatador (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from uninvolved editor/admin: I'm not going to review this myself, but I see the following reasons for the block (to quote the block message), and I'd expect that a reviewing admin would want to see all of them being addressed in an unblock request:
    • persistently adding unsourced or unreliably sourced information to articles

really? which ones? seriously, which ones? If you checked the information you would see that every one of the article entrys has a easily sourced ref, excepting the GRRM which refs several websites--Mayhemmatador (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • using deliberately misleading edit summaries

How so? each summary discribed the content and intent, please show where I mislead? --Mayhemmatador (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • removing or refactoring other editors' comments from talk pages

wow how far off are you, I have not refatored any other comments, if fact I left all my responces to Beach Drifter's comments for days after he himself removed his content and erased my earlier edit summaries.--Mayhemmatador (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • stalking another editor

In what way have I "stalked" another editor? give some proof to that kind of charge! I have not stalked anyone. But perhaps you mean, that I have not just rolled over and allowed the others to say what they wish about my edits, which you yourself called "unsourced" when any effort would show that they are manifestly sourced. Is that what you mean by "stalking"? not taking abuse from other editors?--Mayhemmatador (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • sockpuppetry

when, and how have I ever commited sockpuppetry? Beach Drifter is the source of this Libel, but you seem happy to give it legs. The Fact is I shared a previous with my ex and she kept it, and I started a fresh account soley for myself. I you had taken the time to read all my edits and answers including those that Beach Drifter and Jayron32 redacted then you would already know this. For future reference: know what your talking about or find out about what your talking about before you make such harmful general statements that are false and malicious.--Mayhemmatador (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • persistent incivility and battle-ground mentality rather than a cooperative approach

Any real investigation of ALL recent edits would show that I have taken on and used the advice and concerns of numerous other editors, to bad you didn't take the time to see what we came up with in P-63 KingCobra and Bondi beach where content and sources were strengthened with give and take.--Mayhemmatador (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    • refusal to accept consensus

What consensus? how can a consensus can be reached on a subject in which the naysayers took less then 10 mins to research and review? Am I missing something here? isnt consensus arrived at by the deliberation of "informed" parties. You should be careful with this charge it is thrown around with to much abandon by editors. Often used as a general purpose "because" and mortar for weak forts of argument.--Mayhemmatador (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • edit warring

This charge flys right in the face of its definition, I have responded to questions, provided further refs, removed content, and increase content.--Mayhemmatador (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • At the moment, all I really see being addressed is the "unreliably sourced information" issue, plus a lot of attacking and blaming other people for everything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats all you got out of it huh? so tell me how long did you take looking at edits, not just between myself and the above editors but all of them? Did you take notice of the "you noobs just think Im mean" reasoning Beach Drifter shared early on? Did you take the time to reason out the nature of user: Alereon and his pecular rousing from two months of hibernation to post the "block" request on me? Im guessing that you didn't. Nope I reckon you just thought "I know whats going on here Ive seen it all before" or something along those lines and decided to pop out your two cents worth without bothering to do the background. While I think thats bad, at least you had the honesty not to do the review because you were unwilling or unable time wise to do it properly. --Mayhemmatador (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I thought I'd made it clear that I did not and will not review this block, so the above claims are not my claims and I have not investigated them at all, nor have I suggested anything like "I know whats going on here Ive seen it all before". All I'm doing is pointing out that those are the claims made in the original block, and are the issues that you will need to address one way or another in order to be unblocked - whether by accepting them, or by denying them and seeking evidence from the blocking admin. But to just ignore them in your unblock request is certain to be unsuccessful -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way...[edit]

let me remind the above detractors, the purpose of Wiki is gathering, refining, and web-publishing knowledge through co-operation and Real consensus. It is not so people can play traffic cop, or battle of the Fiefdoms. Take heed, really! Take heed you are killing wiki! how many revedits do you do a day, how many of you are drunk on the self-satisfaction of blocking others? How many entrys with actual Knowledge have you made today? Your entrys should outnumber your revedits and your blocks should be the rare result of hard investigative work, not the knee jerk reaction of jaded editors.

  • If you use this page to post any more of your rants, attacks, and so on, then your talk page access will be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


For JamesBWatson[edit]

  • You should take the time you have used to make a personal threat to me, a now defensless blocked editor, who has no power, and thanks to you no access to contribute, and instead use it to do the research that you should have done before inacting the block on the hearsay of parties with a vested interest. luckily for you, the mistake on your part can still be corrected.

But If you are concerned that my postings here on MY talk page are perhaps shedding to much light on the actions of others and the tiny amount of time you took (less then 9 mins) to make your from-the-hip blocking call you will probably want to shut it down. I am hoping that you will take the high road and do the checking that you should have done before blocking. --Mayhemmatador (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im curious[edit]

So tell me, oh ravenous crew who wish to just stamp me down and move on, When was the last time any of you adimited you were wrong, I mean addmitted you were wrong on wiki? because for all of the hundreds of entrys (except for user: Alereon who only appears ever 3 months to offer the occasional block-bait) and I do mean hundreds of entrys I have yet to find one contribution from JamesBWatson, Jayron32, Beach Drifter, and the late comers fisherqueen where they admit they were wrong, or acknowledge that some other editor was right. Did I miss it? because I didn't find it in any of your listed contribs. Instead I have found a sea of revedits, occasional small content, lots of warnings, lots of blocks, and a tremendous amount of CYA. Isnt this interesting? makes you think. And because I cant do much right now I thought I would take a look at my accusers and I got to tell you, it isnt pretty.

So go threaten someone else JamesBwatson, Im not going to roll over for you.--Mayhemmatador (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are not adding any content to this talk page that would be useful to an administrator reviewing your request for unblock, and because you have made repeated personal attacks on this talk page after being warned to stop, I have disabled your access to this talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


gut check[edit]

editors, everyone should try to calm down. From the peanut gallery this is beginning to look like a dogpile.

FisherQueen, It would appear that Mayhem is in fact adding content, in the form of his defense. It would also appear that he is a bit abrasive, but many of the above comments toward him by others above are personal attacks as well. He has answered all the charges that I can see, albeit with back of his tongue, yet several of his counter-charges towards other editors remain unanswered.

You both seem to be in the wrong to me, Mayhem for his terrier like attitude and You for using a user's handle in regards to your review of the block, but thats just me. So I suggest to avoid the appearance of bias and Administrator abuse, it would be best to let it play itself out. Consensus can only be reached by unfettered from all partys.

Anyone using their position to silence desenting voices in such a personal quarrel sets a bad example.

Dave Gunner Green —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.110.209 (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayhemmatador&oldid=424510708"