User talk:Felixhonecker - Knowledge (XXG)

1212:(1) The userbox was never a question, only what I wrote in Talk and deleted four minutes later without being asked. The userbox was ruled acceptable by admin consensus after it was noted the admin who issued the original 24-hour block had a userbox that also provided advance notification that criminal threats would be reported to authorities. If you want to reopen this case this is not the place to do it; ANI is - we are only dealing with already-decided issues here. (2) Do not muddy the waters by saying my "actions" were disruptive when it is "action" (singular) and it was not disruptive as no one saw the one action until an admin sludged through deleted diffs to notice it and submit an ANI and this was decided long ago. You should exhibit greater community trust that issues decided by other admins were decided on a sound and judicious basis and not presume it is necessary for you to readjudicate decided matters. (3) I'm sorry you're concerned. However, since multiple admins have told me I was treated overly aggressively I do not feel it is incumbent on me to accept "overly aggressive" treatment in the interest of community trust. Community trust is couched on equality of intercourse and is not a synonym for "agree with whatever the blocking admin says." Multiple admins have said this was an aggregiously handled case; "community trust" means "trust in the community." If I have been treated aggregiously and no - not even the slightest - attempt to rectify that treatment has been proferred, there is a serious gap of justice at play. I am simply asking it be evaluated and handled in an adult and proactive way. Not unreasonable. (BTW - I appreciate you just received your adminship two days ago but, please, this is a complex issue and I would prefer you not use it as the place to "establish your mark." You have already had a hasty sock complaint against me quashed and I think it would be best to defer to the sound judgment of other admins at this time. "Piling on" by shotgunning frivolous sock complaints, etc., at me only serves to confuse and muddy this already confusing situation and heightens the injustice of this matter. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.) 1153:: From the discussion below and all linked diffs it should be clear that (1) the "assurances" have already been repeated twice and the blocking admin has acknowledged this - I am being requested to publicly announce them a third time (this point is not in dispute as noted by the below conversation) which serves no purpose other than my humiliation - this is the first time the blocking admin has mentioned or insinuated my previous assurances have been "wooly" and occurred only in the filing of this unblock which, itself, is "wooly", (2) I wholly reject condition #3; I believe I should be returned to status as an editor in good-standing as an equal among equals, not a second-class editor subject to a "guilty until proven innocent" assumption in the event of a future transgression - particularly considering this is my first offense and a co-offender (Bugs) escaped with no penalty at all for the same offense; treatment that admin James Heilman described as "your treatment was a little too aggressive and Bugs not aggressive enough" - among many other admins input (please contact me directly for a summary of those findings). To continue to perpetrate this "too aggressive" treatment upon me would be compounding an error just for the sake of administratorship unity. I respect the "no drama" mantra but do not believe I should be sacrificed on its altar. Thank you. 1132:|I request immediate unblock. Note the blocking admin has offered to unblock me provided I make 3 statements of public contrition. Blocking admin acknowledges I have already made two. Since making a third statement of public contrition serves no purpose other than humiliation and "punishment" the continuance of this block is unwarranted as blocks exist to serve the stability and good order of Knowledge (XXG). Requiring an editor repeat a statement of apology he has already made twice (note: this is not in dispute, please reference the blocking admin acknowledges the statement of apology has already been made twice ) means removal of this block, de facto, becomes conditional on my acceptance of public chastising. I have apologized twice, the first time without even being asked, and that should be sufficient. Knowledge (XXG) is not Roman Catholic confessional; an arbitrary number of apologies, Hail Mary's or other contrition should not be encumbered upon an editor. Editors should assume good faith and treat each other like adults, not children. Thank you.}} 1290:

reject this offer. After having been told by numerous admins in private email correspondence that this episode was handled atrociously but they don't want to get involved in drama, I do not feel I should be required to participate in additional rounds of public contrition or future presumptions of guilt when the other individual involved got off with one half-hearted apology that he then, immediately, turned around and started joking about. I still don't understand why I have been given a life ban for a first offense and another person, guilty of the same offense, got off with being required to make a joking apology. At this point I suggest a bureaucrat reviews this episode. Nationalism and Patriotism should not be used to stifle dissent on Knowledge (XXG) and allow favors. This is Knowledge (XXG), not Ameripedia. This episode speaks to a much larger transgression and issue at work that impacts the entire Knowledge (XXG) community beyond just me.

1451:

restate this three times (twice should be sufficient) since assigning an artificial number of public contrition serves no rational purpose and can only be motivated by a desire to "flex muscle" which is wholly contrary to WP:AGF. I also cannot agree to special conditions permanently placed upon me as a condition of my ability to participate in Knowledge (XXG), including future "enhanced punishments" or automatic presumptions of guilt as those, implicitly, lower me to the standard of a second-class citizen. I believe I should have the right to participate, collaboratively, in Knowledge (XXG) under the same terms and conditions and with the same level of civil treatment as all editors expect. Justice is about balance, not revenge. Moving on is sound advise but difficult to accept when you're the one in the oubliet and everyone is moving on past you, regretting putting you there but shrugging and sighing what's done is done.

1543:(1) Multiple admins have upheld the status of your legal threat against me. Case closed. (2) I already admitted I accidentally socked - note link in my conversation with Manus above. I also explained it was unintentional, which logical analysis of the facts would support (if I were trying to intentionally sock I obviously wouldn't put my Userid in the socking message). The fact you are trying to blow it up to more than it is speaks to your irrational agenda against me. I don't know what I did to you (other than being "un American") but I would appreciate it if you would stop coming after me. This is my second request for you to stop posting on my wall. I don't understand why you have a blanket exemption from the rules here but I will continue making requests that you be obliged to follow them, regardless of how futile those requests - it seems - will be, due to your privileged status. 2401:

didn't like me. Is this a rationale mode of operation? What's happening to me is not right. I didn't do anything to deserve this. I apologize if I'm making a lot of noise but I'm standing in up against a noise machine. When you're being hit with multiple, daily complaints - all the same one - by the same user your wits start to fail. At any moment, if I step away for more than a few seconds from the keyboard, I could find myself blocked because I didn't defend myself against that latest complaint (again, they're all for the same thing!) he shopped around to a new admin. I don't want this. No one should have to go through this. It is not rationale or fair to expect me to accept this as status quo. It is not rationale or fair to fail to compel this user to leave me in peace when the ability to compel him to that course of action exists, as it does.

881:"That said, if someone does make violent threats against users or public officials in support of Al-Qaeda I will, unhesitatingly, report them to the police. This is permitted per legal threats. I stand by that without apology, even though I have not yet seen it happen. " Then it needs not be even stated. Your repeating this continues to poison the well, especially when not remotely relevant. Would it make sense if I prefaced my comments on every article with, "And if you make violent threats, I will report you!"? No. Also, why specify only violent threats in support of Al Qaida? Hm. Finally, you have not stated that you did not, in fact, report the editor to any authorities, despite having said you did in the past-tense. I agree with Fut.Perf, you have been resorting to very tendentious editing and need a break, enforced or not, from the topic. -- 495:

I noticed what I had done I deleted it which the record shows unambiguously. If I had a true intention of threatening another user I most certainly, logically, would not have almost immediately deleted that edit so that they likely would never see it. There is no grand conspiracy at work in which I'm hiding threats buried under pages of deleted edits. It was a simple and honest mistake and the edit history - in which the "threat" was almost immediately deleted unilaterally by me and prior to any complaint being made - supports that. I should not be permanently banned for an edit which, by any reasonable and objective analysis of the edit record, could - at worst - been the result of hasty and impassioned words that were voluntarily taken back without any complaint being filed but which, even less so, was actually an honest edit mistake.

730:

598:

1353:

like to have my editing privileges restored in a way that does not require me to first accept status as a second-class editor, which is implicit if a condition of restoration is continuance of overly aggressive treatment of me that many admins acknowledge has, and is, occurring. I have already met - without even being asked - conditions one and two. I am not interested in "jumping" on command by engaging in a third round of public contrition. Requiring editors to accept humiliation - which, when you require them to apologize three successive times for the same act is what you are doing - as a condition of restoration of editing privileges does not serve any practical purpose that I can understand and is, forgive me if I'm frank, an abusive exercise of authority.

808:. If it was merely about being willing to report Al Qaeda supporters, that would be a different matter, but what enrages people is that you were using the "Al Qaeda" bogeyman to bludgeon opponents in a legitimate dispute, indiscriminately accusing anybody who didn't agree with you on the insurgency in Libya to be either "pro-racist", "pro-CIA", or "pro-Al Qaeda" (or all of these together?). This just shows an unacceptable attitude to collaborative editing. I would support a lifting or shortening of the block only on condition that you stay away from all editing of Libyan topics for at least a couple of weeks (hopefully, until the political situation there becomes less volatile than it is now). 1318:(1) I have never EVER previously been found guilty of edit warring or WP:CIVIL violations. As you know, my only transgression in my entire Knowledge (XXG) history was the "Legal Threat" for which you issued a lifetime ban (even though I - of my own volition - deleted it four minutes after posting it and apologized, both without being asked or without the person to whom it was directed even knowing it was made ). (2) Will Bugs also be required to accept these conditions applied to him? Also, please note - for purpose of full disclosure - I erroneously added a comment in the Sockpuppet investigation page that concerns me under an IP edit (I thought I was logged in)- see: 2356:

single transgression. Is that unreasonable? I need some help. Not much. Just a little help to get someone to leave me alone. It's just not reasonable to expect any editor - no matter who they are - to have to defend and re-defend themselves against an onslaught of the same complaint from the same editor every single day. Do you truly believe Bugs is treating me in a fair, civil manner that is representative of the spirit of Knowledge (XXG)? Do you truly believe I'm being treated like any average editor should expect to be treated by fellow contributors? What's happening to me is not right. I didn't do anything to deserve this.

1818:

without consequence. The admin involved agreed he was culpable of that offense, but just decided his punishment should not be as severe for reasons never explained. The admin involved even said my punishment was unusually harsh but refused to amend it. I find THAT odd ... could you explain it to me? I have emailed 7 different admins so far and heard back from 5, all of whom agreed that it is most unusual the admins behavior in this instance but deferred involvement because they don't want to be involved "in drama." I assume you might have the same POV, and I will be resigned to accept it.

924:

assured that if someone finds it credible, they will report it to the proper authorities; we get enough non-credible threats of suicide and school shootings that someone inevitably feels the need to bring the police into it. Remove the statement in your userbox, retract your statement about how you will report anyone making threats "in support of al Qaida", whyever you have that distinction I don't know, and then I will support an unblock. As it is, your behavior continues to tell me that your priority is to make people fear editing around you. --

274:(1) I have never made 3+ reverts to any entry within a 24-hour period in the entirety of my time on Knowledge (XXG). In fact, since being cautioned by the admin in question regarding a separate issue (for which another editor was also cautioned), I only made one edit (in whole, it took several attempts to make the appropriate reversions) to any entry and that edit was to undo another edit that had been made without discussion and without consensus by an unregistered user and in an entirely separate section of the active entry in question. 896:

but not "specific threats." So it should be objectively clear that I did not report individual to Interpol as much as it would be objectively clear I did not user a magic potion to send the individual in question to Pluto. In the absence of a technical ability to do something it must be presumed that that something did not occur. I cannot, however, apologize for any edits I have made. I have only made 2 edits to this entry and both were consensus supported. How can I apologize for edits that are consensus-supported? Am I expected to?

1869:

that I deleted without being asked, I deleted it within 4 minutes, then I apologize for it without being asked ... AND the person for whom it was intended never saw it. I agreed, of my own volition, I violated Legal Threats. (2) I was then given a lifetime ban. (3) Bugs said I should "be reported" for my views. (4) He was ordered to apologize and refused. He did not edit or delete his statement. He has ignored my requests not to post on my Talk page, even though I have made 5 of them. And I'm the troublemaker?

1488:

this you went off and joked about it on individual admin pages and accused me of trolling (obviously I created and operated a wikipedia account that proferred many well-received and contributive edits for over 6 months as part of a master plant to ultimately troll over a period of 2 days). If you want to offer a real apology I'd be happy to forgive and forget. I'm glad you have some kind of privilege here where you are above the rules and can do whatever you want, including opt-out of punishment. Must be nice.

1784:

would appreciate it if someone brought this point up there, though, as I cannot due to my unjust block (note: I say "unjust block" only because that is what other admins have called it in personal email correspondence ... before noting that, while it was unjust, they don't want to get involved). (I assume no one will as I imagine the reason for this block, as was with my own block, is to shuffle anyone remotely anti-insurgency off Ameripedia as quickly as possible. Congrats, neocons.

1140:: From the discussion below it should be clear that I am not asking Felixhonecker to apologize or to undertake any acts of public humiliation. On the contrary I have asked him to assure me that he will not repeat the action that got him blocked (previous statements from him have been wooly on this point), and that his interaction relating to Libya (the topic in regards to which he has now been blocked twice) will be watched closely (topic probation).12:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 280:(It is to be expected that current events entries will receive a large number of edits and I would appreciate not being blocked in the absence of a clear description and identification of the specific actions I took that violated WP guidelines, versus simply a vague stamp of what guideline I am alleged to have violated. It is unfortunate I have been charged and punished without being allowed to know the specific edit or edits I made that were questionable.) 1105:

on the receiving end. Can anyone please at least let me know what kind of personally identifiable info Bugs can access in pursuing his threatened legal action against me? I need to know if there's anything I can do to protect myself. I don't need opinions right now, I need facts to protect myself from legal action over my "anti-USA edits." Please don't remove the Help tag right now. I really need help. Please, someone help. Thank you.

84: 409: 189: 1746: 2431: 1903:

etiquette, but, I feel a record of these transgressions needs to be maintained anyway so I will continue noting them (and anticipate they will continue to be disregarded owing to his, apparently, privileged status here - such as having no punishment for Legal Threats after I'm given a lifetime ban for Legal Threats on a first offense in my Knowledge (XXG) history).

1009:

contributions to Knowledge (XXG)? Can they track down where I live from my edits? Please help, I don't want my family jailed. Is there anything I can do to protect myself from Baseball Bugs - does he have a way to access my personal info via Knowledge (XXG) to pursue legal action against me? Help please - I'm very concerned about my family's safety and well-being.

2043:. Rather, they may only be used to discuss improvements to the article. The section you're commenting in now started out okay, but you've lapsed into producing your theories about the what is or is not occurring in Libya. Please focus just on discussions about what should be included or not included in the article. Thanks. 2207:

I have requested, on 6 separate occasions, you not post on my Discussion page. This is your 7th transgression. Following your 8th transgression a noticeboard complaint will be filed for violating WP:HUSH 8 times. If you do not like the contents of my Discussion page you should empower yourself not to

1817:

It's not odd when one considers that, after a lifetime edit history without so much as a warning, I was given a permanent ban for a first-time offense ("Legal Threats") while another user (Bugs) was only required to make an apology for the same offense ("Legal Threats") ... and simply opted out of it

1450:

I have always stated I will follow all conditions under which all editors are expected to operate. I have stated this repeatedly and, the history of my involvement on Knowledge (XXG), with the exception of a 4-minute lapse in judgment occurring once in a 6-month period, supports that. But, I will not

1386:

I regret you have made the choice to continue "too aggressive" treatment of me. I will be gone for the next week, however, will file the ArbCon appeal upon my return when I have time to collate the appropriate material and supporting opinions but will file a routine unblock request in the interim (I

1230:

to people. The sock investigation was based on a genuine concern, and I was quite pleased to discover it was unfounded. I am not attempting to "establish mark" or " on", I was attempting to help you get unblocked. But, as you have said you do not desire my assistiance, I am bowing out of this matter

895:

Since it was already established the self-deleted statement in question was an editing error by me I didn't feel it was necessary to note that I had not reported editor in question to Interpol. In fact, individuals cannot be reported to Interpol; individual persons can report broad trends to Interpol

642:

is actively editing my userboxes to change the words. One of my userboxes is the subject of a complaint for which I am not able to defend myself as the person filing the complaint blocked me 58 seconds before filing it, then almost mockingly (knowing I couldn't defend myself while blocked) told me to

568:

I was blocked, then - 58 seconds after placing a block on my account - the admin in question filed separate complaints against me. The block removed my ability to explain or defend myself. In the absence of any explanation by me I have had my block made indefinite. If this isn't spurious I don't know

369:

Please note my own userboxes are being actively modified by other users involved in this edit war in such a way so as to make their content seem more inflammatory. No sanction is being taken against them. I have no ability to explain or defend any questions as I was blocked moments before the blocker

2355:

I would like to collaboratively participate in Knowledge (XXG) without Drama or Politics as I did for many months. I would like to do it without multiple complaints being filed against me each day, often in ways that I won't be "tipped off" to them, all by the same user and in reference to the same

1515:

I have not socked, nor have I threatened to sock again. Do not post on this talk page again unless it is to offer an apology for Legal Threats. Also, please post my below note in the sock investigation thread to the relevant page. I tried to do it but only could under my IP so I deleted it. Though I

1420:

Sigh. Felix if you wish to edit again just say "yes" that you will follow the conditions above. These are conditions all editors should follow. Admins editing activity is under greater scrutiny than others but this does not make them second class editors. Remember we are all volunteers here to write

1304:

Is that a yes or a no? Do you accept those conditions? (I realize the some of them have already been fulfilled, I ask you to confirm that you will abide by your previous statements, a simple yes I accept will do). As for Probation that means that further editwarring, uncivil editing or anything that

1059:

Let's tone it down, shall we Bugs. I also find Toddst1's statement problematic, but in this case the question is about you. I also think a general statement about being willing to act about general threats of criminal intent is somewhat different from singling out a specific political domain against

729:

The "concrete legal threat" made by me was the result of errant and fast typing on my part. This is the reason I, almost immediately, undid it. I was editing both my userbox and the Talk page simultaneously (note that it was already decided there is no issue with content on my Talk page). As soon as

597:

494:

2007:

After discussion with the blocking admin and in light of the agreement by Felix not to repeat the behavior that resulted in the block we have agreed that unblocking at this point in time is reasonable. All are reminded that legal threats are taken seriously. I have collapsed the above discussion as

1868:

Neither I nor the multiple admins who agree are mistaken. In the ANI discussion on this it was upheld as a "possible" legal threat. In my email correspondence with admins on this topic 5 of 7 construed it as a Legal Threat. Those are the genesis of my "insistence." To recap: (1) I made a hasty edit

1352:

I would like have my editing privileges restored as an equal among equals, not a second-class editor. Among the many admins I have communicated with on the Legal Threat issue, James Heilman put it best when he said "your treatment was a little too aggressive and Bugs not aggressive enough." I would

1104:

If someone told you they were thinking about "reporting you to the authorities" because you had an opinion that was "anti-USA" you would see the chilling effect this has. It may appear fun and games when you're not the one being threatened with legal action but it's not so fun when, like me, you're

1038:

I do not consider legal threats funny. Please leave me alone. You've succeeded into scaring me into silence. I'll do whatever you say and agree to whatever, just please don't report me to the authorities like you said. I'm very frightened right now. I promise to agree with you and support any edits

938:

Speaking as merely another editor, not an admin, I'll be a bit more blunt: Until the editor authorizes removal of that userbox AND recants ANY AND ALL threats to "report" editors that he doesn't agree with politically, he has no business editing here. Such threats are an outrageous abuse of editing

687:

User responded to warning by flippantly saying it was "just a bit o' fun." I believe I am still under threat of being targeted on repeated trumped up and frivolous charges for any slipped keystroke by users who have an agenda to have "a bit o' fun" with me. Editors should not have to, daily, defend

283:

I appreciate admin has a passionate opinion about a topic in the news and is being lobbied to block me because I have an alternate opinion, however, I believe NPOV constitutes best practice when assigning blocks. It is regretful when one's ability to freely express oneself on one's Talk page - when

1586:

for Bugs to stop posting on my Talk page, each of which has been ignored without acknowledgment. I know Bugs has a blanket exemption from being compelled by Admins to obey rules and etiquette, but, I feel a record of these transgressions needs to be maintained anyway so I will continue noting them

971:

That userbox has nothing to do with reporting "threats of violence", it's a political statement threatening people you disagree with. Any of us here can delete that userbox if you ask us to. But that's just the beginning. If you continue to claim you will report editors who make edits you disagree

844:

agendas. I would encourage you to remove the userbox that makes that statement. Afterall I think that any editor is expected to report perceived threats against the public safety to the relevant authorities, but this should not be the framework within which we share ideas and opinions in wikipedia.

1487:

Having suffered numerous instance of police harassment due to my involvement in the anti-war movement I do take it as a threat when you say you will report me to the police for "un-American" activities. I can't accept your apology, though, as it is obviously not legitimate - as soon as you posted

923:

You ignored the meat of my comment, which was to say, stop making any kind of appeal to fear of authority. No one cares if you're going to report an editor for any kind of edits, and to continue to state that you will do so poisons the well. If someone makes an edit making a threat of force, rest

843:

I hope you realize that editing with a userbox that states a general willingness to report other users to the FBI, is not conducive to such an environment of freely exchanged ideas. Nor is the quickness with which you paint those who disagree with you as being motivated by incriminating political

2400:

since the lifting of my block. Is cologne controversial? Because I've now been told I'm being run-up on socking for a third time in 4 days, but this time the complaint will be handled "offline" so I won't be "tipped off" . I know how this ends - with me blocked for life because another user just

1783:

Oh God. You should expect to get many sockpuppet complaints from this geolocation as it is to the Libyan community in the US as Miami is to the Cuban community. FYI - I tried to post this in the relevant sockpuppet investigation page but I can't under my registry, only under IP, so deleted it. I

824:

entry I have no problem with self-restraining for 2 weeks. I only wish that NPOV could be actively used in admining so that unpopular opinions expressed on User pages were not coloring decisions to suppress the ability of people with minority opinions to participate in collaborating in Knowledge

1930:

No, you made a Legal Threat that has been upheld as such. However, you - apparently - enjoy a privileged status on Knowledge (XXG), and I do not. Ergo, you are allowed to make Legal Threats and you are allowed to violate WP:HUSH by repeated flooding of my userspace after 6 requests to stop, all

1289:

I have already done #1 and #2 twice, the first time without even being asked. Am I expected to engage in a third round of public contrition for the unblock? As for #3, I don't know what "greater than normal severity" means other than "guilty until proven innocent." In that case I wholeheartedly

584:

You can make any statement in your defense here, and people over at ANI will notice it, or somebody will copy it over if needed. First question you need to clarify is: did you actually report that other user to the police? (Not that I think it matters a lot practically, because they'd obviously

1651:

He has posted on my Talk page repeatedly, after being asked by me 5 times to stop. He continues to do this with no repercussion. Are there words other than "blanket exemption" I should use to describe this status quo? If there are please advise me and I will gladly substitute them. Thank you.

1272:

I will agree to unblock you if you accept the following conditions - 1. you remove your userbox regarding Al Qaeda and Interpol. 2. You state clearly that you have not and will not report, or threaten to report, users to any authority for edits they make unless they openly state that they have

956:

says he reports threats of violence to "the authorities" on his User Page. Can you advise me on the specific wording that I'm allowed to use? I apologize if I offended anyone by denegrating Al-Qaeda and would be willing to use admin Toddst1 verbiage instead of my current verbiage if mentioning

384:

I have protected your talk page dso that non-admin users cannot edit your userboxes any further. This protection will last for a week. Another editor has reverted the page to its pre-vandalism state. Now what you need to do is appeal (on this page) against the block which was extended for your

1008:

I was subjected to Legal Threats by the above user - he said I was "being reported" for my opinion of someone because ""he's been an enemy of the USA." I'm absolutely at my wits end right now and am frightened and scared about what might happen to me. Is it possible I will be arrested for my

709:

You can edit your userpage, defend yourself against the accusations here. It will be taken fully into account in relation to the ANI case and in relation to the block. Right now you should focus on explaining that you have not and will not report any user to any legal authority for questions

1902:

Multiple admins have upheld the status of your legal threat against me. Case closed. This is my third request for Bugs to stop posting on my Talk page, each of which has been ignored without acknowledgment. I know Bugs has a blanket exemption from being compelled by Admins to obey rules and

389:. You do appear to have meade a very concrete threat to report a fellow editor to INTERPOL - in fact you say you have done so. You need to explain that you understand why this was wrong, and that you will not do so again. You can do that here. you do not need access to AN/I to do so. 284:

done within the rules and guidelines of wikipedia - must be restrained or hidden to avoid arising the anger of users who have had their opinions aroused by inflammatory reporting on the pop culture topic du jour regardless of how sentimental or heartfelt those opinions might be.

770:

I would appreciate an explanation as to what exactly my original 24-hour block for edit warring was for? As I previously noted, there is no record of me edit warring. Please also note the editor who was vandalizing my User page is now making wholesale, cut and paste edits to the

2235:

General note for historical reference - following this comment, user was instructed - in ANI - not to edit this userspace anymore. This is a quick note for my reference/personal reminder so I can refer to the appropriate thread in the event it becomes necessary in the future.

1179:, phrased in a fashion that shows no contriteness for the actual threat itself, and, indeed, gives the impression of having missed the point. As for point #3, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, there is no such thing as a "first offence" when it comes to the 1195:

is a policy, it is not a straightjacket, and your "wholly reject" the ability to re-earn the community trust that allows for AGF, instead insisting that you be given it fully and immediately following this matter on the very pages that led to this, is concerning. -

1273:

criminal intentions. 3. you accept that you will be under editing probabtion in editing articles relating to Libya untill further notice, and that any misconduct related to editing in the topic area of Libya will be viewed with greater than normal severity.

38: 1587:(and anticipate they will continue to be disregarded owing to his, apparently, privileged status here - such as having no punishment for Legal Threats after I'm given a lifetime ban for Legal Threats on a first offense in my Knowledge (XXG) history). 569:

what is but I have had all abilities to explain or defend myself permanently suppressed over a period of 90 seconds and am now voiceless. I was tried, convicted and sentenced but prevented from entering the courtroom during the entire proceeding.

1666:

As noted below, there is no Knowledge (XXG) policy that prohibits an editor from posting at another user's talk page, particularly when he is responding to your comments regarding him. If and when you are unblocked, you can always request an

1338:

It is irrelevant whether restrictions will be imposed on any other users. I am being very reasonable here I think, I just need to know that you accept. And no, your editing mishap is unlikely to have any consequences - and the offer still

1707:"Maybe someone should report you somewhere" is a threat and as such is inappropriate. Crossing this out would be a good idea especially if you did not mean to make a threat as may reasonable people including myself would take it as such. 2436:

Re your message on my talkpage - both of you have been advised to leave it. Neither of you is going to convince the other. The full "record" remains, not just Bugs comments. No admin is (or should) rush to block without looking into the

1088:

I have the feeling this is crossing the line into pure trolling. I have a lot of trouble taking Felixhonecker's professed alarm seriously. I'll consider blanking and protecting this talk page if this continues. To other editors: PDFTT.

825:(XXG) by removing edits that have been consensus-established as vandalism. I believe we all should celebrate our ability to freely express our different opinions in a free and open marketplace of ideas. I hope others share this view. 607:

That said, if someone does make violent threats against users or public officials in support of Al-Qaeda I will, unhesitatingly, report them to the police. I stand by that without apology, even though I have not yet seen it happen.

1516:

note you are now grandstanding your happiness that you have more personally identifiable information on me. I can hardly wait until the FBI shows up because Knowledge (XXG) let an editor file slanderous accusations against me.

688:

themselves against volumes of accusations made against them in the hope that one eventually sticks just so other users can have "a bit 'o fun." I'm here to contribute to wikipedia, not pull "gotchas" on other editors.

1183:. Regardless of the treatment of any other editor in this matter, the fact is that your actions on the Libya pages were disruptive, and condition 3 is, indeed, light compared to other possible sanctions (e.g. 306:

Toddst's 3RR block has been superceded by an indef block with a much stronger reason and current consensus on ANI. You will need to respond to the reasons for the second block if you want it lifted.

757:

Thanks for your explanation. I will await the formation of a consensus at the ANI page before I decide whether to lift the indefinite block and return to the original 24-hr block for editwarring.

710:

regarding their editing behavior here on wikipedia. If you do not make a clear statement to that effect you will not be allowed to return to editing. This is all laid out in our policy on

972:

with, you will stay blocked, and dat's dat. An overt "threat of violence" can be reported. Making edits that "support" al-quaeda do not magically become reportable "threats of violence".

1502:

I never said I would report you. You made that up. Meanwhile, given that you've socked and are threatening to sock again, it's you that owes an apology, to the other wikipedia editors. ←

2370:

All the caps above are off putting to say the least. You do not need to defend yourself. You need to simple head off and edit non controversial content. If you do so all this will end.

1931:

without consequence. Unfortunately, I do not have the carte blanche that you do on Knowledge (XXG) and have been given a lifetime ban for doing the same things you did with impunity.

1530:

I made no legal threat. Your claim that I did, is false. And you admitted, below, to having used your IP to post since you were blocked. That's socking, and it's against the rules. ←

739:

That said, if someone does make violent threats against users or public officials in support of Al-Qaeda I will, unhesitatingly, report them to the police. This is permitted per

1759: 2264:

Due to a level of aggression which I am not equipped to handle, I will be - regrettably - leaving Knowledge (XXG) at the end of this week. Please see here for explanation:

1763: 168: 643:"address the complaint." An overworked admin may quickly look at my userboxes and make a decision without seeing edits being made by NPOV users. I have reason to believe 506:{{Sorry, that's even less convincing than 'the dog ate my homework.' That edit wasn't text for your userbox, that was aimed specifically at an editor that you were also 1167:

A simple repeated "yes" to points (1) and (2) is not "public humiliation". In addition, the legal threat box was not removed until the userpage was blanked by an admin

647:

will continue vandalizing my user page to game the system and make sure my indefinite blocks remain. I have no power to stop him or the rest of his gang. Please help.

1322:. I assume this hasty-editing error by me withdraws any previous offers for leniency and will solidify my life ban that was given for a first-time transgression? 547:

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.

338:

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.

2222:

I am pointing out important things to you, one of which is that you do not own your talk page. If an ADMIN tells me to back off permanently, I will do so. ←

449: 229: 56:

one for being conscripted into a lifetime ban since repealing it would cause "drama", despite the fact multiple admins have agreed it was "excessive."

1557:

I'll leave you be once you retract your allegation that I made a legal threat. I did no such thing, and I defy you to find any diff that shows I did. ←

1305:

vaguely resembles a threat will be dealt with with the same severity that you have already experienced. I need to know if you accept those conditions.

1473:

I intended no off-wiki threat of any kind, when I said, "Maybe someone should report you somewhere." I apologize to anyone who took it as a threat. ←

370:

filed complaints against me. It is regretful the admin made the choice to remove my ability to defend myself prior to running charges up against me.

1917:

You're wrong, and you can't find a diff anywhere that indicates that I threatened you. Retract your allegation, and you won't hear from me again. ←

1801:. Since there's a consensus that the non-insurgency flag and information is the correct status of the page, I find this statement rather odd. - 957:

Al-Qaeda by name is offensive to other editors. Unfortunately, I cannot edit any userboxes as long as I am blocked, as I have previously noted.

532: 323: 124: 1961:. Everyone here needs to drop the rhetoric a few notches. In the effort to decrease drama I shall not pursue any admin actions at this time. 805:

I have trouble believing your edits were merely a technical error – done in the heat of the moment, perhaps, but done without intention, no.

2039:

Please note that article talk pages are not the place for you to discuss your opinions or theories about article subjects, as you did at

2226: 2198: 1921: 1893: 1561: 1534: 1506: 1477: 1093: 1029: 990: 981: 943: 914: 812: 679: 589: 444: 310: 224: 1676: 143: 2180:

I fail to see what was inappropriate about it. Per WP:CIVILITY, "a polite, good faith request for an apology may be acceptable."

1369:

I don't think I can interpret that as anything other than a "no". You can request an unblock here on your talk page, or you may

2329:

If as stated you just want to edit the one page I am sure the community would have not problem with you continuing to do that.

151: 2441: 1090: 809: 676: 586: 307: 1699:

WP:HUSH - I have made it clear I do not wish to interact with him here; he is continuing to flood-post my userspace. WP:HUSH

1175:. #1 does not appear to have been done twice; looking over the discussion above the only thing I see you saying about it is 277:(2) I am distraught Admin blocked me and then started a Noticeboard discussion about me so that I could not defend myself. 108: 974:

P.S. If you actually support Qadafi's regime, maybe YOU should be reported to somebody, as he's been an enemy of the USA.

2383: 2342: 2302: 2166: 2021: 1992: 1974: 1720: 1434: 422: 202: 155: 91: 518: 463: 243: 416: 196: 1672: 421:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

201:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1755: 1734: 104: 96: 2387: 2346: 2306: 2194:

The SPI was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. No apology is required, nor should one be expected. ←

2170: 2025: 1978: 1857: 1806: 1771: 1724: 1688: 1640: 1438: 1236: 1201: 668: 395: 2108:

I had no idea you were kidding about, I was trying to give you a pointer. Anyway, I did not mean to offend.

2208:

read it. Any reply to this comment, regardless of content, will be construed as an eighth WP:HUSH violation.

1227: 585:

ignore you anyway, but we need to make sure you understand why this is just completely unacceptable here.)

514: 147: 2113: 1635:

in this matter ("... has a blanket exemption...") is not helping your case for removal of your block. -

1184: 776: 1958:(undent) As per above I would take this as a legal threat "Maybe someone should report you somewhere" 1845: 61: 910:

Do you now support removing your userbox that threatens to report people for making certain edits? ←

2081: 1853: 1802: 1767: 1684: 1636: 1232: 1197: 663: 390: 1370: 350:

I have extended your block length to indefinite in light of the possible implications of this edit

2402: 2357: 2316: 2273: 2237: 2223: 2209: 2195: 2181: 2123: 2095: 2059: 2048: 1932: 1918: 1904: 1890: 1870: 1819: 1785: 1653: 1588: 1558: 1544: 1531: 1517: 1503: 1489: 1474: 1452: 1388: 1354: 1323: 1291: 1248: 1213: 1154: 1106: 1040: 1026: 1010: 987: 978: 958: 940: 911: 897: 858: 826: 780: 744: 689: 648: 609: 570: 427: 371: 285: 207: 57: 1624: 740: 711: 1841: 177: 133: 2073: 1798: 1680: 1668: 2379: 2338: 2298: 2289:

Yes Knowledge (XXG) can be a difficult place and editing is not for everyone. All the best.

2162: 2017: 1970: 1716: 1430: 1129: 929: 886: 541: 332: 114: 1849: 1837: 1632: 1628: 1192: 1180: 507: 386: 1247:"I am bowing out of this matter at this time." -- That is a tempered decision, thank you. 167:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

2109: 2077: 353:. This issue would have to be resolved satisfactorily before you can return to editing. 2438: 2091: 2044: 1002: 857:

Regrettably I cannot make any such edits or changes while I am blocked from editing.

820:

Since there are ample other editors working to combat the vandalism occurring on the

633: 562: 775:

entry without discussion. He explained his previous edits as having "a bit o' fun."

2397: 953: 172: 128: 2371: 2330: 2290: 2154: 2009: 1962: 1745: 1708: 1422: 1374: 1340: 1306: 1274: 1141: 1061: 925: 882: 845: 758: 714: 644: 639: 354: 37: 2315:

It can be if clear and loud examples of WP:BULLY are nipped at the first sign.

2430: 2094:. He was correct and I terminated my participation in that discussion thread. 2040: 743:. I stand by that without apology, even though I have not yet seen it happen. 2446: 2410: 2391: 2365: 2350: 2324: 2310: 2281: 2245: 2230: 2217: 2202: 2189: 2174: 2131: 2117: 2103: 2085: 2067: 2052: 2029: 1982: 1940: 1925: 1912: 1897: 1878: 1863: 1827: 1812: 1793: 1777: 1728: 1694: 1661: 1646: 1596: 1565: 1552: 1538: 1525: 1510: 1497: 1481: 1460: 1442: 1396: 1381: 1362: 1347: 1331: 1313: 1299: 1281: 1256: 1242: 1221: 1207: 1171:; note that your last edit to your userpage before your block was, in fact, 1162: 1114: 1096: 1068: 1048: 1033: 1018: 994: 966: 947: 933: 918: 905: 890: 866: 852: 834: 815: 788: 765: 752: 721: 682: 670: 656: 617: 592: 578: 522: 397: 379: 361: 313: 293: 182: 138: 65: 1627:, and there is no such thing as a "first offence" when it comes to genuine 1319: 2153:

comment is not appropriate. One does not go around requesting apologies.

171:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

1025:

You're funny. So, shall I go ahead and delete that userbox for you? ←

1039:

you make, just please don't pursue legal action against me. Please.

2267: 821: 772: 100: 1671:

if you desire. As for substutions, assuming good faith, or even

1852:, but your continued insistience on this point is concerning.- 1762:

for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with

510:. And you didn't immediately revert it, you edited it first 1060:

which you will take action. I can't help you more than that.

407: 187: 82: 150:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 529:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

320:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

1844:

would assuume that he was speaking clearly in jest as a

1840:; Bugs' may or may not have been inappropriate, but any 549:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

340:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2151: 1959: 1760:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Felixhonecker

1176: 1172: 1168: 806: 511: 477: 473: 467: 458: 454: 440: 436: 432: 351: 257: 253: 247: 238: 234: 220: 216: 212: 1988:

Text that does not work in the collapse box moved here

1387:

anticipate that will be rejected but it can't hurt).

169:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

154:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 2268:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jmh649#Felix_again

977:

Intended only as irony, not as any kind of threat. ←

779:

has questioned him about it and he brushed him off.

513:

before removing it. Not good enough, I'm afraid.}}

415:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

195:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

2272:Thank you to those who have made me feel welcome. 1754:Your name has been mentioned in connection with a 103:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to 1373:. I will not take further action in this case. 1320:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:24.22.210.27 1623:Bugs's comment was not a legal threat. Also, 107:. If you would like to be unblocked, you may 46:Sacrificed to the Altar of "NoDrama" Barnstar 8: 1836:You're mistaken. Your statement was a clear 142:During a dispute, you should first try to 21: 2122:No need to apologize, I wasn't offended! 1675:instead of stating that some editors are 35: 26:This issue has been resolved and closed. 2090:Simmer down, I was just WP:JOKING with 939:privileges and must not be tolerated. ← 2008:hopefully these issues are resolved. 1177:your offering to genericise the words 7: 2396:I have not edited any entry except 1766:before editing the evidence page. 14: 2429: 1764:the guide to responding to cases 1744: 1189:trust is not given, it is earned 675:And I've warned the other user. 626:My Userboxes are Being Vandalize 36: 1421:an encyclopedia. Lets move on. 984:→ 21:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1: 1983:19:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1941:20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1926:01:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1913:01:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1898:00:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1879:01:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1864:01:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1828:00:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1813:00:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1794:00:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1778:19:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 1740: 1729:19:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1695:01:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1662:01:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1647:01:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1597:01:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1566:01:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1553:01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1539:00:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1526:00:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1511:00:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1498:00:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1482:14:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 1461:19:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1443:19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1397:01:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1382:01:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1363:01:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1348:01:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1332:00:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1314:00:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1300:00:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1282:03:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 1257:18:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1243:18:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1222:18:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1208:17:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1163:16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1115:17:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 1097:17:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 1069:17:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 1049:17:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 1034:17:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 1019:17:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 995:17:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 967:17:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 948:17:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 934:17:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 919:17:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 906:17:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 891:17:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 867:17:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 853:17:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 835:16:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 816:16:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 789:16:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 766:16:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 753:16:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 722:16:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 683:16:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 671:16:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 657:16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 618:16:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 593:16:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 579:16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 523:17:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 398:16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 380:16:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 362:16:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 314:16:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 294:16:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 183:16:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 144:discuss controversial changes 139:15:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 95:temporarily from editing for 2072:You may find it boring, but 1993:User talk:Felixhonecker/Text 1371:appeal your block to ArbCom 419:, who declined the request. 199:, who declined the request. 2462: 1625:blocking is not punishment 662:Already done (see above). 123:, but you should read the 2447:09:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 2411:04:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 2392:04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 2366:04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 2351:04:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 2325:04:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 2311:03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 2282:02:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 2246:23:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 2231:20:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 2218:19:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 2203:19:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 2190:19:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 2175:18:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 2132:06:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 2118:01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 2104:19:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 2086:12:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 2068:09:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 2053:09:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 2030:00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 1889:I made no legal threat. ← 533:guide to appealing blocks 324:guide to appealing blocks 125:guide to appealing blocks 105:make useful contributions 42: 2406: 2361: 2320: 2277: 2241: 2213: 2185: 2127: 2099: 2063: 1936: 1908: 1874: 1823: 1789: 1657: 1592: 1548: 1521: 1493: 1456: 1392: 1358: 1327: 1295: 1252: 1217: 1158: 1110: 1044: 1014: 962: 901: 862: 830: 784: 748: 693: 652: 613: 574: 375: 289: 66:19:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 2260:Leaving Knowledge (XXG) 1631:. Also, your continued 1226:And I would prefer you 1173:reconfirming the threat 1151:Note to reviewing admin 1138:Note to reviewing admin 1758:case. Please refer to 1683:would be my advice. - 1677:more equal than others 1187:). As my father says, 412: 192: 87: 1228:do not assign motives 464:change block settings 411: 244:change block settings 191: 119:Your reason here ~~~~ 86: 1846:reductio ad absurdum 508:personally attacking 1193:assuming good faith 1181:legal threat policy 111:by adding the text 413: 193: 152:dispute resolution 88: 2444: 1999: 1998: 1850:assume good faith 1842:reasonable person 1799:There is no cabal 1752: 1751: 985: 515:Elen of the Roads 181: 137: 109:appeal this block 71: 70: 2453: 2442: 2433: 2376: 2335: 2295: 2159: 2014: 1967: 1860: 1809: 1774: 1748: 1741: 1713: 1691: 1673:assuming nothing 1643: 1427: 1378: 1344: 1310: 1278: 1239: 1231:at this time. - 1204: 1145: 1133: 1065: 1007: 1001: 976: 849: 777:User:Orange_Mike 762: 718: 666: 638: 632: 567: 561: 546: 540: 483: 481: 470: 452: 450:deleted contribs 410: 393: 358: 337: 331: 263: 261: 250: 232: 230:deleted contribs 190: 175: 131: 122: 99:, as you did at 85: 40: 33: 32: 22: 2461: 2460: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2372: 2331: 2291: 2262: 2155: 2148: 2037: 2010: 2005: 2000: 1990: 1963: 1862: 1858: 1811: 1807: 1776: 1772: 1739: 1709: 1693: 1689: 1681:part of a cabal 1669:interaction ban 1645: 1641: 1471: 1423: 1376: 1342: 1308: 1276: 1241: 1237: 1206: 1202: 1143: 1127: 1125: 1063: 1005: 999: 847: 760: 716: 707: 664: 636: 630: 628: 565: 559: 557: 552: 544: 538: 537:, then use the 526: 497: 471: 461: 447: 430: 423:blocking policy 408: 391: 356: 348: 343: 335: 329: 328:, then use the 317: 297: 251: 241: 227: 210: 203:blocking policy 188: 165: 160: 156:page protection 112: 83: 80: 27: 19: 12: 11: 5: 2459: 2457: 2428: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2261: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2147: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2036: 2033: 2004: 2001: 1997: 1996: 1989: 1986: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1856: 1854:The Bushranger 1805: 1803:The Bushranger 1770: 1768:The Bushranger 1750: 1749: 1738: 1732: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1687: 1685:The Bushranger 1639: 1637:The Bushranger 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1583:fourth request 1470: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1235: 1233:The Bushranger 1200: 1198:The Bushranger 1124: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 950: 921: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 734: 733: 732: 731: 706: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 665:Kim Dent-Brown 627: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 602: 601: 600: 599: 556: 553: 527: 504: 500:Decline reason 492: 488:Request reason 485: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 392:Kim Dent-Brown 347: 344: 318: 304: 300:Decline reason 272: 268:Request reason 265: 186: 164: 161: 89:You have been 81: 79: 76: 74: 72: 69: 68: 49: 48: 43: 41: 29: 28: 25: 20: 18: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2458: 2449: 2448: 2445: 2440: 2434: 2432: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2403:Felixhonecker 2399: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2375: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2358:Felixhonecker 2354: 2353: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2334: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2317:Felixhonecker 2314: 2313: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2294: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2274:Felixhonecker 2270: 2269: 2265: 2259: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2238:Felixhonecker 2234: 2233: 2232: 2228: 2225: 2224:Baseball Bugs 2221: 2220: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2210:Felixhonecker 2206: 2205: 2204: 2200: 2197: 2196:Baseball Bugs 2193: 2192: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2182:Felixhonecker 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2158: 2152: 2145: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2124:Felixhonecker 2121: 2120: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2096:Felixhonecker 2093: 2092:User:Qwyrxian 2089: 2088: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2060:Felixhonecker 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2035:Talk page use 2034: 2032: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2013: 2002: 1995: 1994: 1987: 1985: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1966: 1960: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1933:Felixhonecker 1929: 1928: 1927: 1923: 1920: 1919:Baseball Bugs 1916: 1915: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1905:Felixhonecker 1901: 1900: 1899: 1895: 1892: 1891:Baseball Bugs 1888: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1871:Felixhonecker 1867: 1866: 1865: 1861: 1859:One ping only 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1820:Felixhonecker 1816: 1815: 1814: 1810: 1808:One ping only 1804: 1800: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1786:Felixhonecker 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1775: 1773:One ping only 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1747: 1743: 1742: 1736: 1733: 1731: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1712: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1692: 1690:One ping only 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1654:Felixhonecker 1650: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1642:One ping only 1638: 1634: 1630: 1629:legal threats 1626: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1589:Felixhonecker 1585: 1584: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1563: 1560: 1559:Baseball Bugs 1556: 1555: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1545:Felixhonecker 1542: 1541: 1540: 1536: 1533: 1532:Baseball Bugs 1529: 1528: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1518:Felixhonecker 1514: 1513: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1504:Baseball Bugs 1501: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1490:Felixhonecker 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1479: 1476: 1475:Baseball Bugs 1469:Clarification 1468: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1453:Felixhonecker 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1426: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1389:Felixhonecker 1385: 1384: 1383: 1380: 1372: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1355:Felixhonecker 1351: 1350: 1349: 1346: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1324:Felixhonecker 1321: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1312: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1292:Felixhonecker 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1280: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1249:Felixhonecker 1246: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1238:One ping only 1234: 1229: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1214:Felixhonecker 1211: 1210: 1209: 1205: 1203:One ping only 1199: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1185:topic banning 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1155:Felixhonecker 1152: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1139: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1131: 1122: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1107:Felixhonecker 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1095: 1092: 1070: 1067: 1058: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1041:Felixhonecker 1037: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1028: 1027:Baseball Bugs 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1011:Felixhonecker 1004: 998: 997: 996: 992: 989: 988:Baseball Bugs 983: 980: 979:Baseball Bugs 975: 970: 969: 968: 964: 960: 959:Felixhonecker 955: 951: 949: 945: 942: 941:Baseball Bugs 937: 936: 935: 931: 927: 922: 920: 916: 913: 912:Baseball Bugs 909: 908: 907: 903: 899: 898:Felixhonecker 894: 893: 892: 888: 884: 880: 868: 864: 860: 859:Felixhonecker 856: 855: 854: 851: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 832: 828: 827:Felixhonecker 823: 819: 818: 817: 814: 811: 807: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 790: 786: 782: 781:Felixhonecker 778: 774: 769: 768: 767: 764: 756: 755: 754: 750: 746: 745:Felixhonecker 742: 741:legal threats 738: 737: 736: 735: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 720: 713: 712:legal threats 704: 695: 691: 690:Felixhonecker 686: 685: 684: 681: 678: 674: 673: 672: 669: 667: 661: 660: 659: 658: 654: 650: 649:Felixhonecker 646: 641: 635: 625: 619: 615: 611: 610:Felixhonecker 606: 605: 604: 603: 596: 595: 594: 591: 588: 583: 582: 581: 580: 576: 572: 571:Felixhonecker 564: 554: 551: 550: 543: 536: 534: 525: 524: 520: 516: 512: 509: 503: 501: 496: 491: 489: 484: 479: 475: 469: 465: 460: 456: 451: 446: 442: 441:global blocks 438: 437:active blocks 434: 429: 428:Felixhonecker 424: 420: 418: 417:administrator 399: 396: 394: 388: 385:breaching of 383: 382: 381: 377: 373: 372:Felixhonecker 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 360: 352: 345: 342: 341: 334: 327: 325: 316: 315: 312: 309: 303: 301: 296: 295: 291: 287: 286:Felixhonecker 281: 278: 275: 271: 269: 264: 259: 255: 249: 245: 240: 236: 231: 226: 222: 221:global blocks 218: 217:active blocks 214: 209: 208:Felixhonecker 204: 200: 198: 197:administrator 185: 184: 179: 174: 170: 162: 159: 157: 153: 149: 145: 140: 135: 130: 126: 120: 116: 110: 106: 102: 98: 94: 93: 78:February 2011 77: 75: 67: 63: 59: 58:Felixhonecker 55: 51: 50: 47: 44: 39: 34: 31: 30: 24: 23: 16: 2435: 2427: 2398:Drakkar Noir 2373: 2332: 2292: 2271: 2266: 2263: 2156: 2149: 2038: 2011: 2006: 1991: 1964: 1957: 1838:legal threat 1756:sockpuppetry 1753: 1735:Sockpuppetry 1710: 1706: 1582: 1581: 1472: 1424: 1419: 1271: 1188: 1150: 1137: 1126: 1087: 973: 954:User:Toddst1 708: 705:your defense 629: 558: 548: 530: 528: 505: 499: 498: 493: 487: 486: 459:creation log 426: 414: 349: 339: 321: 319: 305: 299: 298: 282: 279: 276: 273: 267: 266: 239:creation log 206: 194: 166: 141: 118: 97:edit warring 90: 73: 53: 45: 2076:is policy. 1580:This is my 645:User:Dn9ahx 640:User:Dn9ahx 346:Legalthreat 2058:borrrring 2041:Talk:Libya 2003:Unblocking 1123:Your block 455:filter log 235:filter log 2374:Doc James 2333:Doc James 2293:Doc James 2157:Doc James 2110:Dbrodbeck 2078:Dbrodbeck 2012:Doc James 1965:Doc James 1711:Doc James 1633:bad faith 1425:Doc James 1091:Fut.Perf. 810:Fut.Perf. 677:Fut.Perf. 587:Fut.Perf. 531:read the 474:checkuser 433:block log 322:read the 308:Fut.Perf. 254:checkuser 213:block log 148:consensus 146:and seek 2439:Fainites 2437:history. 2384:contribs 2343:contribs 2303:contribs 2167:contribs 2146:Comments 2045:Qwyrxian 2022:contribs 1975:contribs 1721:contribs 1679:and are 1435:contribs 1375:·Maunus· 1341:·Maunus· 1307:·Maunus· 1275:·Maunus· 1191:; while 1142:·Maunus· 1062:·Maunus· 846:·Maunus· 759:·Maunus· 715:·Maunus· 445:contribs 355:·Maunus· 225:contribs 117:|reason= 52:I award 2227:carrots 2199:carrots 2074:WP:TALK 1922:carrots 1894:carrots 1562:carrots 1535:carrots 1507:carrots 1478:carrots 1339:stands. 1130:unblock 1030:carrots 991:carrots 982:carrots 944:carrots 915:carrots 542:unblock 468:unblock 333:unblock 248:unblock 173:Toddst1 129:Toddst1 127:first. 115:unblock 92:blocked 17:Heading 2443:scribs 952:Admin 926:Golbez 883:Golbez 387:WP:NLT 2388:email 2347:email 2307:email 2171:email 2150:This 2026:email 1979:email 1725:email 1439:email 822:Libya 773:Libya 535:first 326:first 101:Libya 2407:talk 2380:talk 2362:talk 2339:talk 2321:talk 2299:talk 2278:talk 2242:talk 2214:talk 2186:talk 2163:talk 2128:talk 2114:talk 2100:talk 2082:talk 2064:talk 2049:talk 2018:talk 1971:talk 1937:talk 1909:talk 1875:talk 1848:. I 1824:talk 1790:talk 1737:case 1717:talk 1658:talk 1593:talk 1549:talk 1522:talk 1494:talk 1457:talk 1431:talk 1393:talk 1359:talk 1328:talk 1296:talk 1253:talk 1218:talk 1169:here 1159:talk 1111:talk 1045:talk 1015:talk 1003:help 963:talk 930:talk 902:talk 887:talk 863:talk 831:talk 785:talk 749:talk 694:talk 653:talk 634:help 614:talk 575:talk 563:help 555:Help 519:talk 376:talk 290:talk 178:talk 134:talk 62:talk 478:log 425:). 258:log 205:). 163:ANI 2409:) 2390:) 2386:· 2382:· 2364:) 2349:) 2345:· 2341:· 2323:) 2309:) 2305:· 2301:· 2280:) 2244:) 2229:→ 2216:) 2201:→ 2188:) 2173:) 2169:· 2165:· 2130:) 2116:) 2102:) 2084:) 2066:) 2051:) 2028:) 2024:· 2020:· 1981:) 1977:· 1973:· 1939:) 1924:→ 1911:) 1896:→ 1877:) 1826:) 1792:) 1727:) 1723:· 1719:· 1660:) 1595:) 1564:→ 1551:) 1537:→ 1524:) 1509:→ 1496:) 1480:→ 1459:) 1441:) 1437:· 1433:· 1395:) 1361:) 1330:) 1298:) 1255:) 1220:) 1161:) 1128:{{ 1113:) 1047:) 1032:→ 1017:) 1006:}} 1000:{{ 993:→ 965:) 946:→ 932:) 917:→ 904:) 889:) 865:) 833:) 787:) 751:) 655:) 637:}} 631:{{ 616:) 577:) 566:}} 560:{{ 545:}} 539:{{ 521:) 502:: 490:: 472:• 466:• 462:• 457:• 453:• 448:• 443:• 439:• 435:• 378:) 336:}} 330:{{ 302:: 292:) 270:: 252:• 246:• 242:• 237:• 233:• 228:• 223:• 219:• 215:• 121:}} 113:{{ 64:) 54:me 2405:( 2378:( 2360:( 2337:( 2319:( 2297:( 2276:( 2240:( 2212:( 2184:( 2161:( 2126:( 2112:( 2098:( 2080:( 2062:( 2047:( 2016:( 1969:( 1935:( 1907:( 1873:( 1822:( 1788:( 1715:( 1656:( 1591:( 1547:( 1520:( 1492:( 1455:( 1429:( 1391:( 1379:· 1377:ƛ 1357:( 1345:· 1343:ƛ 1326:( 1311:· 1309:ƛ 1294:( 1279:· 1277:ƛ 1251:( 1216:( 1157:( 1146:· 1144:ƛ 1109:( 1094:☼ 1066:· 1064:ƛ 1043:( 1013:( 986:← 961:( 928:( 900:( 885:( 861:( 850:· 848:ƛ 829:( 813:☼ 783:( 763:· 761:ƛ 747:( 719:· 717:ƛ 696:) 692:( 680:☼ 651:( 612:( 590:☼ 573:( 517:( 482:) 480:) 476:( 431:( 374:( 359:· 357:ƛ 311:☼ 288:( 262:) 260:) 256:( 211:( 180:) 176:( 158:. 136:) 132:( 60:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index