User talk:Wolf guevara

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Computerjoe's talk 18:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. Computerjoe's talk 18:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. (twice!) Ian13/talk 19:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

learned his lesson?

{{unblock| 1)Wold Guevara believes he has learned from his ban and is willing to try to be reintrodyced into the community 2) the lengthe of the ban is already very long. 3)appologizes for any offence caused }}

I feel that wolf Guevara's now 5 day block is long enough considering his actions

RFCU shows he's a sockpuppet. Computerjoe's talk 19:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

RFCU did not it claimed "Wolf guevara is quite likely the same individual attempting to avoid detection." however it does not have conclusive evidence and thus there is reasonable doubt as to him being a sockpuppet. I can confirm he is not.

My bad, I apologise. However, if you do come back I'd like to see more good faith edits. Computerjoe's talk 20:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

i assure you that would be the case

Well I'm not willing to unblock, there have been no good edits and the RFCU doesn't seem to be needed to suggest this is an account of an existing user being used for attack purposes. --pgk^(talk) 14:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And there will never be good edits if we continue this block. As in abortion, the child could be a genius who could help mankind in great ways. Just put wikipedia in instead of mankind. Ciraric 20:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Have Good Faith

surely for an organization whose main ideas are good faith and verifiable evidence wolf must be unblocked? Have the good faith that he will no longer act against wikipedia. And there is no proof that he is a user who uses this account to attack wikipedia. Can we not arrange some form of probationary measure?

Request for unblock: DENIED. Ian13/talk 16:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I quote from RfCU

1. 88.109.205.196, Silent Lamb Child, and Cicero Dog are without question the same user.
2. Wolf guevara is quite likely the same individual attempting to avoid detection.

The only contributions made by this account have been POV pushing and creation of a userpage. There have been 0 article edits. Even if this account is not a sockpuppet (ie. a friend acting on their behalf), vote stacking and POV pushing is not how Wikipedia works, and only served to be disruptive. Ian13/talk 16:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfairly Treated?

i see no point in your quote from the RfCU it does not show any damning proof against Wolf Guevara. Perhaps his lack of contributions was due to the fact that he was new to wikipedia when he was blocked. Thus he was unaware of the way in which wikipedia works. He found himself blocked before he knew what was happening and his now unable to return. I must ask that this be looked at a third time by a non subjective party and that the FACTS are taken into account not petty squables over community justice. { {unblock| 1) for the reasons stated above 2) the block is now reaching 7 days 3) ther is no evidence that Guevara is guilty of anything more than a single personal attack which he now regrets to the extreme 4) he is willing to show through hard work and determination that he can earn back the respect of wikipedia}}

"And there will never be good edits if we continue this block. As in abortion, the child could be a genius who could help mankind in great ways. Just put wikipedia in instead of mankind. Ciraric 20:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)"

Wolf guevara killed my father and raped my mother! User:Djh1102 15:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Cicero Dog 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Deactivating unblock notice - I think we can see no admin is prepared to unblock... Ian13/talk 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No all we have seen is that YOU are not prepared to unblock him Cicero Dog 17:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(unblock request by Cicero Dog)

Well I'm not prepared to either, and Ian13 was not the first (see User_talk:Cicero_Dog#User:Wolf_guevara). Petros471 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wolf

{{unblock| 1) he has more than learned his lesson. 2) He is willing to apologise to everyone he has wronged.}}

Your unblock request has already been denied. You do not get to keep adding it until you find someone sympathetic. There are users waiting who have legitimate requests. Do not add it again or I will protect this talk page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

THIS MAN SAVED HUNDREDS OF ISRAELI CHILDREN FROM A LEBANESE PAEDOPHILE RING AND THUS SHOULD BE UNBLOCKED 88.110.147.227 19:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

1) this is an anti - semitic blocking by muslim extremists 2) Cicero Dog orders it

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= 1) this is an anti - semitic blocking by muslim extremists 2) Cicero Dog orders it |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= 1) this is an anti - semitic blocking by muslim extremists 2) Cicero Dog orders it |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= 1) this is an anti - semitic blocking by muslim extremists 2) Cicero Dog orders it |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}