221:. Nominators are supposed to modify the article in response to reviewers. Now how can a review progress if the candidate list/article keeps being modified by editors who don't participate to the review ? As for the USO article, you made some edits I didn't agree with and I reverted them writing "these changes should be discussed". I probably shouldn't have made the revert and just ask for the discussion, but then you probably shouldn't have edited the page again as you knew I had asked for a discussion. The page will be at FLC sometime soon, and if you want we'll discuss it there. For the moment I have addressed your edits at the Wimbledon review. --
462:
champions. Don't be discouraged by his bad behavior...continue to report it and note why what he is doing is contrary to
Knowledge (XXG), which requires that articles reflect pluralistic points of view and mutliple, major independent sources. Fyunclick is clearly wrong, yet has shown no inclination to compromise, admit mistakes, or the like. Thus, is it up to others to point out his behavior, which in the long term damages not just Knowledge (XXG) but the education of those who use it.
1185:, "When a Checkuser detects that an account has been using open proxies, this information may be considered when evaluating suspicions of sock puppetry or other editing abuses. If there is an appearance that an account has been using open proxies to circumvent policy, the account may be blocked." When you make a claim about not being part of policy, you should probably actually read the policy in question. Toodles! --
1031:
839:
574:
1117:
socking. So, all the varying excuses (yes, they vary all over the place) given for initiating the block and then declining to unblock make no sense whatsoever. When the next administrator acts, please first read the ANI thread cited in my initial unblock request and applicable policies and then cite a relevant policy in your decision.
340:
I don't get it. I'll have to live with what ? If it's with the fact anybody can make any edit I have no problem with that. I said I was wrong to revert you on the US Open article (which was by the way at FLC during your first edit), and I was probably wrong to do it too on the
Wimbledon article, even
270:
It's not a matter of having a rule or not. If an FLC is being modified by editors who ignore the review, it becomes disruptive for that review, because suddenly the reviewers and nominators who were working on a particular version of the page, sometimes studying the text word by word, find themselves
175:
page to see how the process works. Continuing to make major edits (including the removal of sources) while ignoring the review and/or refusing to take part in reviews or discussions as you did is counter-productive. Now, since you refuse to follow conventions and list your issues with the article on
426:
Come on, one message you threaten me, the next you tell me what to do ? Seriously : I admit my mistakes (I should have contacted you directly instead of reverting your edits), but you haven't been exactly cooperative when it comes to discussing major changes. Do what you want with the USO article -
142:
Are you even trying to be civil? You have reverted pretty much the same things I have, though you have one other person on your side of the issue, yet you post two warning items on my talk page like I'm the only one. I'll talk to a mediator and see if maybe he can help us out here but I still don't
1116:
It should be noted that the block was in violation of policy from the very beginning. There is no policy that prohibits a registered user from using an open proxy. Nor is there a policy that allows a registered user to be blocked for using an open proxy. Finally, there is no evidence whatsoever of
301:
Of course I understand the problem for articles that have actually been nominated for featured status. But you'll just have to live with it. Nominating an article does not entitle you to exercise ownership over it or revert any and all edits made to it. Do you understand that? If not, maybe we
243:
I have done absolutely nothing wrong. And as I suspected, there is no rule prohibiting the editing of an article that has been nominated for featured status. If you don't like the absence of such a rule, then maybe you should suggest one at the appropriate forum. Declaring that "I intend in the
126:
Do we have some past I don't know about? It seems you have been saying some harsh things and digging into the past on me with some sort of vendetta. I know we disagree on certain things but why the acidity? I see you are new to wikipedia but people disagree around here all the time without getting
461:
User
Fyunclick's edits are contrary to the outside sources...sources such as ESPN, the World Almanac, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Roland Garros website all list the French pre-1925 champions. Fyunclick has gone so far as to claim the tournament started in 1925, and blanked the pre-1925
780:
Open proxies may be used for reading, yes, however for security reasons open proxies are hard-blocked on sight, and users may not edit while connected through an open proxy. That's why the word "reading" is italicized there; that's the only allowed use of open proxies on
Wikimedia projects.
817:
a prohibition against using open proxies to read articles. Finally, the policy says nothing about blocking a registered user for using an open proxy. If you believe your interpretations to be correct, perhaps you should pursue an amendment of the policy to reflect your views. Regards.
936:: "Well, as far as I know, and having discussed the matter privately with a couple of 'crats and Arbcom members, and as a result of some investigations (including direct contact with him) we are pretty sure that this isn't Tennis expert. ... It may be worth talking it over with
680:: "Well, as far as I know, and having discussed the matter privately with a couple of 'crats and Arbcom members, and as a result of some investigations (including direct contact with him) we are pretty sure that this isn't Tennis expert. ... It may be worth talking it over with
807:
I didn't say anything about a "warning". I said "notice". As you will see, there is not now and never has been a blocking notice on this discussion page, which specifically violates the
Knowledge (XXG) blocking policy. As for open proxies, the Knowledge (XXG) policy does
999:
It should be noted that not being Tennis Expert does not mean that you are not using multiple accounts and/or IP addresses in an abusive manner. You are currently running through a plethora of open proxy IPs in an attempt to dodge this block, as evidenced by
341:
though I was just trying to have a stable page during the review. My only problem was with the fact you kept ignoring the calls for discussion, despite being asked to join the review several times before you actually did it. And why are you threatening me of
675:
Only an IP account that was confirmed to have been an open proxy should have been blocked, not my registered account. 3) None of my edits have been disruptive or have even been alleged to be disruptive. And no sockpuppeting has occurred, as administrator
812:
say that open proxies may be used only for "reading". In fact, the policy specifically says "may be used" without qualification, and certainly editing is a "use". The reference to "reading" is there simply to say that there is
383:
Stop exercising ownership of articles and stop knee jerk reverting my edits. Reinstate my edits to the US Open article, which you admit should not have been reverted. Then, we can have a productive and loving relationship.
176:
the review, I'll try to address your edit summaries, but we will get nowhere, and certainly won't be able to improve the article unless you accept to participate in a regular review/discussion process. --
1004:. That seems to be the exact reason you were blocked in the first place, as the block log states that your block was for "sock on open proxies", i.e. the use of open proxies to violate
55:
171:
told you, in the case of a GA, FA of FL reviews, "it is conventional for reviewers to list issues , so that the nominators can try to deal with them." You should go through the
671:
they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. No restrictions are placed on reading
Knowledge (XXG) through an open or anonymous proxy.
427:
but since we still disagree on the nature of the changes we have to open a discussion on the talk page too. I'll address your comments on The
Championships' review later. --
36:
The case itself says, "It is well-known that in
English law there is no right to privacy, and accordingly there is no right of action for breach of a person’s privacy."
127:
upset. I assure you I'm not upset... just trying to make a better article, that's all. I will stand my ground but if I said something to make you upset I do apologize.
244:
near future to nominate such-and-such article for featured status" does not entitle you to revert every edit made to the article, before the nomination or after.
777:
Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking, particularly in cases of sockpuppetry (which is noted in the block policy, in the "Education and
Warnings" section)
1173:
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.
991:
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.
766:
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.
54:
How about "the case is the leading authority for the statment". I study law and you NEVER cite ancient cases unless engaging in judicial activism. See
1008:. That you, as of 22:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC) on the IP 89.108.146.125 were still doing this does not bode well for getting yourself unblocked. --
21:
Hello. I'd be interested to know what earlier cases are authority for the statement that there is no common law right to privacy in
English law?
1158:
976:
751:
143:
know where all this animosity is coming from. You also seem to have a good working knowledge of wiki for only being a member here since June.
688:(among other places), where The Rambling Man specifically suggested that I request an unblock here. Please refer to that discussion. Thanks!
218:
172:
1071:
879:
614:
962:
You're blocked for your use of open proxies, and there's no cause at all to unblock, Tennis Expert or Mickey Mouse or whoever. --
669:"Open or anonymising proxies ... may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users,
531:
490:
667:. 2) The block was for allegedly using open proxies. However, the Knowledge (XXG) policy on this subject specifically says,
685:
548:
I apologize for not meeting your expectations. But this discussion is useless so long as this account remains useless.
1066:
874:
609:
1044:
852:
587:
195:
a featured candidate. And aside from that, please show me the policy that prohibits normal editing of an article that
1038:
846:
581:
1043:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
851:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
586:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
527:
486:
167:: "When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on article talk pages". As
1182:
500:
Really doesn't matter. This account is useless because it is blocked indefinitely in violation of policy by
724:
you aren't going to get off the hook simply because the blocking administrator didn't jump through some hoop
148:
132:
726:. I find no compelling reason to unblock you, because you have not addressed the reason you were blocked.
723:
164:
1144:
933:
677:
505:
1085:
937:
893:
681:
663:, blocked my account without providing notice (prior or after the fact) of any kind, in violation of
628:
168:
112:
108:
62:
58:
26:
22:
710:
This does not deal substantively with the reason for the block, which is that this account appears,
508:. The Wikimedia ombudsman has been contacted about this, and we'll see what happens. Best wishes.
1193:
1016:
734:
482:
432:
350:
276:
226:
181:
144:
128:
660:
501:
1005:
719:
715:
711:
1167:
1140:
985:
760:
104:
1181:
Actually, there is a policy that prevents registerred users from using open proxies. See
342:
303:
191:
The FL review process does not explain your knee-jerk reversions of the article that is
463:
1186:
1009:
963:
782:
727:
428:
346:
272:
222:
177:
1118:
1049:
941:
857:
819:
689:
592:
549:
509:
385:
307:
245:
200:
80:
37:
1139:
Per comment below. Three unblock requests used up; page to be protected now. —
774:
I won't decline this while the ANI discussion is ongoing, however I will note:
668:
718:. This is true regardless of the actual activity by this account. Also,
684:
if you still have serious concerns." 4) This issue has been discussed on
1200:
1148:
1126:
1023:
966:
949:
924:
Now the basis for the block has shifted/changed, I see. This is a
827:
794:
741:
697:
557:
535:
517:
494:
471:
436:
393:
354:
315:
280:
253:
230:
208:
185:
152:
136:
116:
88:
66:
45:
30:
664:
526:
A curious answer. Were you not TE, I'd expect you to say "who?"
271:
with a completely different version. Do you understand that ? --
1001:
107:
for deletion, now the article has been expanded a little :-)
1029:
837:
572:
1155:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
973:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
748:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
103:
You might wish to consider withdrawing the nomination of
1175:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
993:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
768:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
714:, to be a a secondary account which does not conform to
56:
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
1099:
1095:
1089:
1080:
1076:
1062:
1058:
1054:
940:
if you still have serious concerns." Please unblock.
907:
903:
897:
888:
884:
870:
866:
862:
642:
638:
632:
623:
619:
605:
601:
597:
1037:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
845:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
580:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
504:at the instigation (through a private e-mail) of
345:suddenly ? Can't we have a civil discussion ? --
485:returned. Do you care to confirm or deny this?
8:
932:a secondary account. As I quoted earlier,
17:Right to privacy under English common law
219:Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates
7:
665:the Knowledge (XXG) blocking policy
720:wikipedia is not legal proceedings
481:Hello. You are suspected of being
14:
659:1) The blocking administrator,
306:or another appropriate forum.
302:should move this discussion to
163:No need to get testy. Re-read
1:
1183:Knowledge (XXG):Open proxies
1041:, who declined the request.
849:, who declined the request.
716:the rules for such accounts
584:, who declined the request.
1217:
1201:02:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
1149:04:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
1127:02:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
1159:guide to appealing blocks
1024:04:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
1002:this discussion at WP:ANI
977:guide to appealing blocks
967:17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
950:18:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
828:05:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
795:02:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
752:guide to appealing blocks
742:05:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
698:03:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
558:21:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
536:21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
518:21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
495:20:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
472:00:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
165:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus
117:12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
89:22:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
67:22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
46:22:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
31:21:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
1122:
945:
823:
693:
553:
513:
437:21:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
394:20:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
389:
355:20:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
316:20:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
311:
281:20:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
254:20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
249:
231:20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
209:19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
204:
186:11:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
173:featured list candidates
153:22:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
137:05:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
84:
41:
199:a featured candidate.
1034:
842:
577:
1086:change block settings
1033:
894:change block settings
841:
629:change block settings
576:
457:Keep up the Good Work
938:User:John Vandenberg
682:User:John Vandenberg
528:William M. Connolley
487:William M. Connolley
169:User:Chrishomingtang
1035:
928:account. This is
843:
578:
483:USer:Tennis expert
1208:
1196:
1189:
1172:
1166:
1105:
1103:
1092:
1074:
1072:deleted contribs
1032:
1019:
1012:
990:
984:
934:The Rambling Man
913:
911:
900:
882:
880:deleted contribs
840:
765:
759:
737:
730:
678:The Rambling Man
648:
646:
635:
617:
615:deleted contribs
575:
506:The Rambling Man
469:
466:
105:Douglas v Hello!
99:Douglas v Hello!
1216:
1215:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1194:
1187:
1178:
1170:
1164:
1163:, then use the
1152:
1130:
1093:
1083:
1069:
1052:
1045:blocking policy
1030:
1017:
1010:
996:
988:
982:
981:, then use the
970:
953:
901:
891:
877:
860:
853:blocking policy
838:
771:
763:
757:
756:, then use the
745:
735:
728:
701:
636:
626:
612:
595:
588:blocking policy
573:
570:
568:Unblock request
479:
467:
464:
459:
161:
124:
101:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1214:
1212:
1204:
1203:
1153:
1137:
1133:Decline reason
1114:
1110:Request reason
1107:
1028:
1027:
1026:
971:
960:
956:Decline reason
922:
918:Request reason
915:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
800:
799:
798:
797:
790:
787:
778:
746:
708:
704:Decline reason
657:
653:Request reason
650:
571:
569:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
541:
540:
539:
538:
521:
520:
478:
475:
458:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
236:
235:
234:
233:
212:
211:
160:
157:
156:
155:
123:
120:
100:
97:
96:
95:
94:
93:
92:
91:
72:
71:
70:
69:
49:
48:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1213:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1190:
1184:
1180:
1179:
1177:
1176:
1169:
1162:
1160:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1136:
1134:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1113:
1111:
1106:
1101:
1097:
1091:
1087:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1068:
1064:
1063:global blocks
1060:
1059:active blocks
1056:
1051:
1046:
1042:
1040:
1039:administrator
1025:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1013:
1007:
1003:
998:
997:
995:
994:
987:
980:
978:
969:
968:
965:
959:
957:
952:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
921:
919:
914:
909:
905:
899:
895:
890:
886:
881:
876:
872:
871:global blocks
868:
867:active blocks
864:
859:
854:
850:
848:
847:administrator
829:
825:
821:
816:
811:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
796:
793:
792:
791:
788:
785:
779:
776:
775:
773:
772:
770:
769:
762:
755:
753:
744:
743:
740:
739:
738:
731:
725:
721:
717:
713:
712:quite clearly
707:
705:
700:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
674:
672:
666:
662:
656:
654:
649:
644:
640:
634:
630:
625:
621:
616:
611:
607:
606:global blocks
603:
602:active blocks
599:
594:
589:
585:
583:
582:administrator
567:
559:
555:
551:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:
523:
522:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
484:
476:
474:
473:
470:
456:
438:
434:
430:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
395:
391:
387:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
356:
352:
348:
344:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
317:
313:
309:
305:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
282:
278:
274:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
255:
251:
247:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:
214:
213:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
189:
188:
187:
183:
179:
174:
170:
166:
158:
154:
150:
146:
145:Fyunck(click)
141:
140:
139:
138:
134:
130:
129:Fyunck(click)
121:
119:
118:
114:
110:
106:
98:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
76:
75:
74:
73:
68:
64:
60:
57:
53:
52:
51:
50:
47:
43:
39:
35:
34:
33:
32:
28:
24:
16:
1192:
1191:
1174:
1156:
1154:
1138:
1132:
1131:
1115:
1109:
1108:
1081:creation log
1048:
1036:
1015:
1014:
992:
974:
972:
961:
955:
954:
929:
925:
923:
917:
916:
889:creation log
856:
844:
814:
809:
784:
783:
767:
749:
747:
733:
732:
709:
703:
702:
670:
661:YellowMonkey
658:
652:
651:
624:creation log
591:
579:
502:YellowMonkey
480:
477:Who are you?
460:
196:
192:
162:
125:
102:
20:
1141:Daniel Case
1077:filter log
885:filter log
620:filter log
109:Francium12
59:Francium12
23:Francium12
1157:read the
1096:checkuser
1055:block log
975:read the
904:checkuser
863:block log
750:read the
639:checkuser
598:block log
159:Ownership
1067:contribs
964:jpgordon
875:contribs
610:contribs
429:Don Lope
347:Don Lope
273:Don Lope
223:Don Lope
178:Don Lope
79:Scary.
1168:unblock
1090:unblock
1006:WP:SOCK
986:unblock
926:primary
898:unblock
761:unblock
633:unblock
1188:Jayron
1119:Chidel
1050:Chidel
1011:Jayron
942:Chidel
858:Chidel
820:Chidel
729:Jayron
690:Chidel
593:Chidel
550:Chidel
510:Chidel
465:Ryoung
386:Chidel
308:Chidel
246:Chidel
201:Chidel
81:Chidel
38:Chidel
1161:first
979:first
815:never
754:first
343:WP:AN
304:WP:AN
1145:talk
1123:talk
946:talk
824:talk
789:fold
786:Hers
722:and
694:talk
554:talk
532:talk
514:talk
491:talk
433:talk
390:talk
351:talk
312:talk
277:talk
250:talk
227:talk
217:See
205:talk
182:talk
149:talk
133:talk
122:why?
113:talk
85:talk
63:talk
42:talk
27:talk
1100:log
1047:).
930:not
908:log
855:).
810:not
686:ANI
643:log
590:).
468:122
193:not
1195:32
1171:}}
1165:{{
1147:)
1135::
1125:)
1112::
1094:•
1088:•
1084:•
1079:•
1075:•
1070:•
1065:•
1061:•
1057:•
1018:32
989:}}
983:{{
958::
948:)
920::
902:•
896:•
892:•
887:•
883:•
878:•
873:•
869:•
865:•
826:)
764:}}
758:{{
736:32
706::
696:)
655::
637:•
631:•
627:•
622:•
618:•
613:•
608:•
604:•
600:•
556:)
534:)
516:)
493:)
435:)
392:)
353:)
314:)
279:)
252:)
229:)
207:)
197:is
184:)
151:)
135:)
115:)
87:)
65:)
44:)
29:)
1143:(
1121:(
1104:)
1102:)
1098:(
1053:(
944:(
912:)
910:)
906:(
861:(
822:(
692:(
673:"
647:)
645:)
641:(
596:(
552:(
530:(
512:(
489:(
431:(
388:(
349:(
310:(
275:(
248:(
225:(
203:(
180:(
147:(
131:(
111:(
83:(
61:(
40:(
25:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.