User talk:Retrolord

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).

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

talk) 18:34, 11 October 2013 (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 have blocked you indefinitely. This is unrelated to the section right above; I take no position about whether you are a sockpuppet or not. But simply put, you have been a disruptive influence to the project for the last several weeks. Today's mess regarding the AutoWikiBrowser is one incident, but there are many others: spamming the emergency Wikimedia Foundation email, opening 15 GA reviews and generally giving very poor-quality reviews, being quite hostile for no apparent reason [1], the list goes on. This style of editing behavior is not well-compatible with what the community expects from its volunteers. Accordingly, I am blocking you until you can demonstrate the appropriate level of emotional maturity to edit without causing disruption or conflict. (To appeal this block, if your reply fails to convince me, please see

I have returned after a considerable absence from Wikipedia. I feel I have now learnt my lesson from the incidents mentioned above and would request the ban be lifted. I hope to return to the project and return to being a net positive to the Wikimedia foundation in general. Any input is appreciated, ★★King•Retrolord★★ 08:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have learnt that I need to be less hostile towards other editors, and that the editing block is no longer required. Once I have returned I'd also like to stay away from admin related areas, as detailed in the topic ban Dennis Brown worked out, to avoid any unnecessary confrontation. Thanks, ★★King•Retrolord★★ 10:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To clarify, I feel that the block in general was warranted and that my behaviour was not compatible with Wikipedia's standards. The comments mentioned above refer to NW's mention of "15 GA reviews" and "Spamming the emergency email", no evidence was offered to support either of those assertions. So it is for two reasons that I ask the block be lifted,

A) I feel I have learnt my lesson in regards to behaving civily on-wiki, and editing constructively

B) I do not feel concerns regarding GA reviews or off-wiki spamming are valid (or true)

Thanks, ★★King•Retrolord★★ 10:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering my unblock request

Answering this here, since I also answered it on IRC in the -unblock channel. You know perfectly well that the standard offer requires a six-month absence; you have so far been blocked for 2 1/2 months. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

Congratulations!

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, in recognition of your commitment in reviewing 8 Military History good article nominations, peer review requests, A-Class nominations and/or Featured Article candidates during the period July to September 2013, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited in a while, but thank you nonetheless! ★★King•Retrolord★★ 08:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:NuclearWarfare is asked to explain the above points as he was the blocking admin. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 07:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior to the owners of the servers was disruptive and wasted plenty of employee-hours (i.e. more than zero). Your GA review quality was, to put it bluntly, the worst I have ever seen. Your overall behavior has been nothing but combative or, alternatively, disruptive, on every page I have seen you post at. Please stop pinging me with the same points, and take a leaf from the fact that not a single administrator has agreed with any of the substantive issues that you have put in your block appeal thus far. NW (Talk) 13:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, your continued insistance my GA reviews are of poor quality is against consensus NW. You also failed to address most of the points. Please explain why off wiki actions were mentioned in the block notice? Please also provide some evidence for these claims, I have never seen any evidence of me 'spamming' the foundation, have you? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly cannot believe that this isn't some high-quality trolling. I'm going to remove this page from my watchlist. If you ping me again I may choose to fully protect this page for a defined period of time. If another administrator wants to unblock, they are welcome to. NW (Talk) 13:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:NuclearWarfare, there are NUMEROUS significant factual errors in the block notice that you have flat our REFUSED to explain. An explanation of point 2 mentioned above would be nice. I would also like to know WHY off wiki actions were mentioned in a block notice, especially given there is no evidence to support those claims. Please answer these questions NW, you can't just ignore them and protect the page. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't joking. Your talk page has been fully protected for an hour. NW (Talk) 13:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles