User talk:Holdek: Difference between revisions

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges as discussed on ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Toddst1 (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Blocked after making this reply to the blocker at an ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=591474527. Seems to be retaliation, considering he was in the process of continuing the ANI by asking me questions such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=591472960&oldid=591471746, and making statements such as this: "I'd hate to see anybody get blocked here," (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs&diff=591469269&oldid=591448093) after his accusation of bad faith gaming the system. Request uninvolved admin to review what seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to a response that I took pains to phrase as benignly as I could given the accusation and its tone. Holdek (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

OK, here is the review by an uninvolved admin that you requested. I see much disruptive editing, including edit warring, an obstructive approach in discussions, attempting to wriggle around criticisms of what you were doing by methods which have been described as trying to game the system, and a form of ownership approach in which you try to deny equal editing right to particular editors you disagree with, inventing ridiculous pretexts for doing so, such as that they have not put their name down on a so-called "project" page. I see an administrator who was at pains to try to give you every chance, including stating that he would prefer that nobody be blocked, and asking you to clarify a statement that you had made. I see you continuing to exhibit a battleground approach, even in a discussion about a possible block of your account, where one might expect that motivation to be seen as being reasonable and cooperative might be maximal. I see the administrator finally give up on any hope of encouraging you to respond constructively, and block you. I see that, dealing with a persistently disruptive editor with a history of numerous blocks over a period of seven years, the administrator chooses to be so remarkably lenient as to block for only one month. I see you make an unblock request which is pure WP:NOTTHEM, in which you quote such facts as that the blocking admin expressed the hope that a block would not be necessary, and that he asked you for clarification of a statement, not as evidence of his good faith and his willingness to try to help, but as evidence that his behaviour was somehow reprehensible. The depressing thing is that I get the impression that this bizarre unblock request was actually made in good faith, and that you really cannot see the nature of the things you have said and done. That is how it all looks to an uninvolved outsider. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've taken a further look at your editing since I blocked you. It has become clear that you have repeatedly used 68.50.128.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in a disruptive manner since 2012 and you did once again in your latest edit war at List of most-listened-to radio programs. That coupled with your history and your post-block bad-faith behavior including attacking the uninvolved admin who declined your block above is enough for me to change this block to indefinite, which I have done. Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

False charges. No evidence. And admin did not go through SPI procedure (including allowing me to defend myself). Further proof that this is a personal issue. Requesting block to be reduced to previous block length, preferably removed entirely. Holdek (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It looks to me the same way it looked to JamesBWatson in his decline of your first unblock request above, and I see no more cause for optimism in the edits you have added after the second, indefinite, block. This recent edit with its wikilawyering edit summary, plus this, merely continue what JamesBWatson called "attempting to wriggle around criticisms of what you were doing by methods which have been described as trying to game the system". Good indefinite block. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

They are provided for other admins who may review your block. You may lose the privilege to edit this page if it continues. Toddst1 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You significantly amended your comment above my reply to it without noting so. Read: Wikipedia: Talk#Own comments and change your comment in accordance. Holdek (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• When I saw your request for an uninvolved administrator to assess your block, I did so. At the time, I guessed, on the basis of observation of your behaviour, that you would not accept that, and so it has turned out. What you meant by "an uninvolved administrator" was, of course, "an administrator who would give you the result you wanted". So, you attack me, and ask for another administrator. That one dismisses your appeal. So do you start to wonder whether perhaps things don't look to outsiders the way you see them? Not a bit of it: instead, you come up with some crap about a group of incompetent admins being selected to deal with your case. You have also come up with nonsense about your unblock request being handled by one of a "handful" of admins you handle ANI. In fact, if you check my editing history, you will see that I very rarely edit there at all. I usually avoid it like the plague, unless there is a case that particularly concerns me. Anyway, leaving this chat aside, I note that most of what you have been doing recently in this page has been attacking other editors, changing other editors' posts, wikilawyering, and making unblock requests that do not address the reasons for your block. You may well find that a little more of the same will be enough to lose you talk page access. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling less charitable about your post-block edits than Mr. Watson. Since you used the privilege to edit this page while blocked to attack yet another admin after he declined your unblock request, you have lost the ability to edit this page. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note: I don't think Holdek has a leg to stand on in his complaint about my decline of his second unblock request.[1] That said, I didn't remember I'd blocked him previously, and not very long ago either (October 2013). If I had remembered, I would have left the unblock review to someone else. There are indeed other admins, as the user points out. Bishonen | talk 19:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Holdek emailed me a clarification on their vote on the medical disclaimer RFC, but I hesitate to make that change without public confirmation ... just to avoid the appearance of "shenanigans". Holdek says they only oppose Version D, not Versions B and E ... public confirmation with a post from Holdek appreciated before I make that change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I'm glad you posted this here. Take a look at our policy on proxy editing. You shouldn't be acting as Holdek's agent. Holden can't edit this page because s/he used it to attack both admins who reviewed his/her block and now that we know s/he is recruiting proxies via email, I've turned his/her email privileges off as well. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, this is quite an over-the-top and inaccurate reaction to an innocent situation. Holdek participated in an RFC before s/he was blocked. I summarized some of the RFC conclusions on the talk page, and pinged each participant to check that my summary was accurate. Because Holdek can't respond on the RFC because s/he is blocked, they emailed me to let me know I had summarized his/her "vote" incorrectly (although I believe there is some confusion requiring clarity for the closing admin). I hesitated to change my record of Holdek's "vote" without a public record of the clarification. For Holdek to be penalized for responding to a request I made is excessive.

At any rate, clarification of his/her vote will make no difference in the overall outcome, so I will simply note on the RFC summary that s/he is blocked.

But I'm a bit concerned that this is the second over-the-top blocking situation I've seen today. Is it the moon? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, your previous note made it sound like Holdek initiated the contact. Given your clarification, I'll restore email privileges. Hopefully s/he won't misuse them. I'm going offline for a while but didn't want to leave this hanging. Toddst1 (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Toddst1 ... I'm sorry my post was unclear, and muddied the situation. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ANI#Review of block and admin authority. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a fair amount of investigation on this case and discussed on the BASC list. In my opinion, the original block (for 1 month) was good and necessary. The increase to indefinite was based primarily on previous IP editting and Toddst1 states that this is sockpuppetry. Looking at the time scales though, Holdek stopped editing in 2008, the particular IP editing was not until 2012. It is not unreasonable that he would come back as an IP. He then returned to this account in 2013 and the IP has not editted since, more than 1 edit. Given the circumstances, I have re-instating the original 1-month block, which has now been served. I am therefore unblocking Holdek.

That said, Holdek, you will need to improve your behaviour, as it is likely that the next block will be indefinite and justifiably so. I myself will keep this page watched an will be quite willing to re-instate the block myself. Worm^TT(talk) 13:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]