User talk:Dark Liberty

Your J-20 Updates[edit]

I just want to thank you for vastly improving the Chengdu J-20 page. Keep up the good work! --Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was also going to commend you for your improvements to that article. Excellent job. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 19:19, 27 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I was on the front page of Wikipedia which featured the Hong Kong protests of 2014, and noticed a large number of edits coming from one user, Citobun, who kept changing the title of the article to the Umbrella Revolution. I tried to keep NPOV on the article. Citobun then brought the matter to arbitration.

Citobun lied that I blanked out his comments regarding myself and stated incorrectly that I violated the 3RR rule, when it was actually a difference in opinion. Actually if you notice in that particular edit, it was a different user. EdJohnston proceeded with the block on those grounds.

I restored a large amount of content to the article and included the the main goal of the revolution according to the student protestors, which was "electoral reform that includes civil nomination of Hong Kong's Chief Executive".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Citobun has been involved in edit warring in the last 6 years.

I have reviewed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Decline reason:

If you accuse others of having lied, you should better provide evidence in the form of diffs. That said, no statements by Citobun, correct or incorrect, contributed to your block; your own conduct did. You'll need to address that. See also WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I will work with other editors. If they are politically motivated, I will ignore them. Wikipedia is a self-regulating system and does not require me to police certain threads. I will explore WikiProjects, and interact with other experienced editors collaboratively. Since Wikipedia is based on mutual trust, I will be more flexible in my decisions, since inflexibility forbids long-term solutions to any problem. I will exercise gentleness towards any editor, no more snide comments while editing, as well as exercise jurisprudence, which I have ignored in the past, and rather than placing judgment on others, I will resolve problems, as balance is key. Having been accepted by others, I accept others in turn. Also, I was blocked on the first time for a 2RR, not a 3RR, and I will not engage in such behavior again. If unblocked, I intend to edit articles on commercial aviation so that it would properly reflect industry-wide changes in internal cabin lighting systems. Also, I would like to contribute my expertise in food in a way that, rather than inaccurate stubs, provides on-demand access to information regarding specific dishes and recipes. I have reviewed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dark Liberty (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Disruptive IP socking while this request was standing shoots this down. Now a CU block.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2019 (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.

You were blocked four and a half years ago. Are you attempting to take the standard offer? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]