User talk:Velten

All edits by users banned from this page will be reverted as soon as noticed

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is a new request from last time. Extraordinary Machine has abused his powers long enough. I'm becoming more and more concerned about what he's been doing; his most recent administrative action was blocking an IP address because it made edits to Cool (song). That was not me. If this continues, all IP addresses will be reverted from editing that article because of this user's ridiculous power-misuses. He doesn't have any evidence that I edited the page, and he's gone ahead and reset the ban to another three weeks. What he's just done and what I'm trying to prove is not "gaming the system"; I didn't do it and he doesn't possess evidence that I did it. The ban should not have been reset without some sort of proof. I request that this block be removed and that EM have his powers suspended.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

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.

• EM tells me I'm blocked from editing an IP address I've never used before
• He wrote this on the IP's talk page and their edits on Cool (song). The "There's no reference that it reached number one in Mexico" sounds like something I would say, but not "Also change other oddities". I did not make these two edits and EM does not have any evidence to provide that I made these edits.
• Here he's making up stories to other users (which he's going to deny as truthful because I'm "disruptive")
• There is no 74.117.11.247 IP address in the library, as far as I can tell. If this nonsense continues from this user, then all IP addresses will be unable to edit the article again. I request that his powers be suspended temporarily. Velten 13:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

For EM

I think they've established that it's a library. Velten 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

With the greatest respect for Geogre, that seemed to be an educated guess more than anything. Regardless, you're now claiming you're editing from a school library, while on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration you said you are editing from a reference library. [1] Extraordinary Machine 16:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a reference library. I never said that they've established it's a school library; those are their own assumptions which they've chatted about offline. I never claimed that I edited from a school library. The link is there to clearly prove what some users have acknowledged, and for some reason, they seem to think this is a school library. But no, it's a reference library, which I've touted as far back as January. I'm sure that was a sincere guess. Velten 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on request for unblock

EE/Velten has a long history of parachuting into articles barely days after I have edited them; see this message I left at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, as well as [2]. Velten, that we both edit in the same (very broad) subject area does absolutely nothing to explain your strange habit of parachuting into articles barely days after I have edited them, particularly as several of your "stalking" edits were related to content within my own userspace. It doesn't matter what edits you are doing to Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album); you still wouldn't be regularly editing them if I hadn't started doing so myself. You also have a history of harassing editors such as Bishonen and Giano, none of whom edit pop music articles.

I've given the reasons for my block; it's not "making up excuses" if you have clearly disrupted a page after being told many times not to. Removing old AFD notices has the exact same effect as editing or removing other people's comments, which you were told many times not to do. I am not "tampering with" any discussion and I do not appreciate being accused of doing so. Extraordinary Machine 16:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• To be bluntly honest, I don't quite give a damn about what you do and don't appreciate.

1. I made significant edits to Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song) long before you did; in the first article I simply restored information that was removed by an IP address user; I added that information in mid-July, long before you started editing that article.
2. For Promiscuous (song), I did reformat the charts, which I had done here, here, here, here ... (the list goes on) that day.
3. Removing old AFD notices has the exact same effect as editing or removing other people's comments, which you were told many times not to do — that's not part of the ArbCom ruling. I explained clearly here that I removed the template because the AFD was unusual, was speedily removed, and the nominator was eventually ostricized for his/her questionable conduct. You stated that you considered it disruption. Basically, you're telling me that part of the block was initiated because you felt it was inappropriate; that's ridiculous. Personally, I did not consider it disruption because it was (as I stated) confusing. Those are two separate opinions and you did not bother to discuss it with me, instead assuming your view and blocking me. That's incredibly irresponsible.
4. I request that Extraordinary Machine have his sysop abilities formally disabled per misconduct. This block was initiated in bad faith and I'm suspecting that it was simply to rid of me for another period of time; if this continues, essentially I'll be blocked for lengthier periods of time because EM will see something that he considers outrageous, even though it won't be. I also request that he be banished from editing on my talk page.

Velten 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty tired of being blocked when there's an important ongoing discussion elsewhere on Wikipedia. Seems somewhat suspicious to me. Velten 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I back you on having EM getting his admin revoked, it's very obvious he abuses his powers. --Thankyoubaby 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why has nobody responded to this ridiculous block yet? I am concerned about this. Velten 02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no one else from the CAT:RFU team has reviewed your block, I suggest that you contact an Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee member directly to review your most recent block. I have a feeling that most of us block reviewers including myself do not wish to involve ourselves in a complex matter with a long history that appears to be an ArbCom matter only. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed it. This gives every appearance of gaming the system. Velten is engaging in behaviour she knows without any question at all is both disruptive and forbidden, and it really is about time she learned better. Last time this was discussed in the ArbCom ruling clarifications section the clarification was unequivocal support for a block. Guy 22:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Guy didn't review my block because all those edits and links I've provided aren't disruptive or forbidden; adding content on Wikipedia is forbidden? You're feeding garbage to me. As the user above you stated, you're simply not shortening my block because you don't want to get involved with the complexity. It looks like I'm going to unblock this account myself. Velten 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Could I get a review from someone who is willing to get involved with the complexity? Velten 01:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm aware that Thatcher131 asked for the block to be shortened to an appropriate amount of time, but nothing's happened. I'm curious to know if other discussions rose in the process? Velten 15:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pitiful Bish

Do you really think you can keep me out? I've already begun editing since I removed the block on this account. The only problem is that the edits won't be visible until the Wikipedia-enforced ban is lifted, because our unblock-material cannot disable the original initiator's action. After the block expires and I turn on this computer, all the edits will go through, and at this rate it looks like it's gonna be about thirty, thus far. Velten 20:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

Do not add yourself back to this category. Please contact an ArbCom member directly to seek clarification or review. Unblock review has already repeatedly refused to review your case due to your long and complex history of conflict. Your threat to resume tendentious editing does not lend much credibility to your request either. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read my unblock request, you'd understand that this is a new request because of events that took place in (what seems to be) the last sixteen hours (and for something I never did). I'm readding myself because what this admin's just done is not acceptable. Could you at least take a look at my request? Velten 14:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you say that they "repeatedly refused to review [my] case". Then I was correct when one user rejected my request without taking a look at it. That is not how unblock works and if this continues, I will leave a comment at an accompanying talk page. Velten 14:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As one of the admins who does regularly work CAT:RFU, I was commenting on how your last unblock request stood untouched for over a week while other requests were being reviewed quite frequently. The point I'm trying to make is that the Arbitration Committee imposed conditions on your editing in the first place and a lot of administrators including myself are hesitant to challenge the enforcement of their remedies. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Could you at least look at this? I was originally blocked for three weeks for this and this, which I found ridiculous. I let it go because I was frequently busy these past two weeks. However, I logged on this morning to see what's been happening and I find that my entire block was reset because an IP address edited this article. I edited that article quite a bit during my heyday, but Extraordinary Machine, the admin in question, reset my ban because he thought it was me. He wrote here that I evaded my ban and even accused it here of being in the Toronto IP range. He doesn't have any evidence that I made this edit, so does that warrant him to reset the block for three weeks? That's outrageously courageous on his part and very disruptive. That's why I put the unblock review message on my talk page again. This "reblock" is clearly ridiculous without any evidence; he didn't even hesitate to state that it was me without any proof. How does he know it was me? How does he know it's Toronto-based? I'm aghast... Velten 14:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

1. I block you for being disruptive; you accuse me of "making up excuses". JzG (talk · contribs) reviews your request for unblock and declines it; you accuse him of not "get[ting] involved with the complexity". Apparently, anyone with whom you disagree on this matter is wrong, or hasn't read into it, or is misusing his/her powers and must have them removed immediately, or is making up stories, or something else.
2. That IP is in the Toronto area [3] [4]. Your claim about editing from a library still doesn't hold water, because the 64.231.0.0 range includes 65,000 addresses. Really, how many Gwen Stefani fans live in Toronto, much less edit Wikipedia or this specific article? How many know about edit histories or leaving edit summaries or reinserting old edits? Here you promised to continue editing Wikipedia while blocked, and just a few days later this happens. I'd be foolish not to think it was you. Extraordinary Machine 14:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Because you're on the topic, I want you to clearly explain what was disruptive in the initial three-week ban. JzG (talk · contribs) did not review my block, which was stablished by this edit. You are the only one who has made up excuses so that I cannot edit, a misuse of sysop abilities.
2. Now I see that the IP address is indeed from Toronto. My claim about editing from a library certainly upholds water; I've already pointed out that Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes and Geogre have agreed on this. How many Gwen Stefani fans live in Toronto? How would I know? I'd assume a handful or more, and I'd assume further that quite a few would edit her article and music-related articles. I've already pointed out that the edit summary was somewhat identical to mine, but that doesn't establish any evidence on your part whatsoever. Here I said I would continue to edit, which I had been doing because the library lifted the Wikipedia ban. However, the edits would not process until the ban entirely expired because our material can only do so much. Now that you've reblocked me, all my edits were undone again. I have not edited from an IP since September. I promised to edit anonymously during my block? I promised no such thing. I promised I'd remove the Wikipedia-enforced ban and edit from my account, which I did. I've already explained why the edits would not process.
3. I request that this entire ban be lifted. In the meantime I'm preparing a comment for WP:AN.

Velten 17:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)