From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Blocked
I have reviewed your edit history and past comments made to you. You seem to have a long history of tendentious and disruptive edits, and this [1] is, in my view, the last straw. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for bigotry, and it is hard to see disruptive acts such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattie Gossett as anything else. I see no sign that you even accept that what you are doing is wrong, so this block is indefinite. You may appeal the block using {{unblock}} if you like, but I give you notice that unless you give an unequivocal undertaking never to do anything like that again, never to utter another racist or bigoted word on Wikipedia and never to attack other Wikipedians again, you are unlikely to succeed. The tolerance of the community for this kind of thing is at an all-time low. Yes, I know that diff is stale. I also know, because I have reviewed your contributions, that you continue to pursue a white supremacist agenda on Wikipedia and offer aid and succour to those whose edits serves to promote an agenda which most find distasteful (e.g. [2]). Frankly, I don't think Wikipedia needs that. I believe you vanished once: that was a good call. Wikipedia is not for everyone. You may find Conservapedia more to your taste. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.
Request reason: "Block was over something which happened a long time ago, which has been moved on from. Block appears to be malicious and retaliatory, and therefore self-serving and not objective. Purported requirement that I state a pre-written sound-byte to be allowed back appears to be a power-trip. I nominated the Hattie Gossett article for deletion because it was all of two sentences long, contained virtually zero content, and did not establish notability (unless using "black feminist" as a peacock term equates to notability, which I don't believe it does). I have repeatedly denounced vandalism since, everywhere from Talk:Scientific Racism to User_talk:God Save the South. Threats from this rogue admin about how I'm "unlikely to succeed" if I don't comply with his power-tripping demands seem tantamount to an adult raping a little kid, then telling him not to tell the police because they won't believe him. Again, I feel that this block is an un-objective, unfair, biased power-trip, being enacted for the sole purpose of punitive retaliation/satisfying a personal liberal agenda."
Decline reason: "This edit is absolutely abhorrent. As you are unwilling to state you will never do anything like that again, never to utter another racist or bigoted word on Wikipedia, and never to attack other Wikipedians again, I am declining your unblock. That you use your unblock request to engage in further personal attacks just seals the deal. — Yamla (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)"
Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.
He's back, and back to old ways. See here - User talk:Bobak.[3] --208.58.197.14 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
