User talk:*90Aa

Block Discussion
Oh, so you what you are basically telling me is that you are siding with the other admins and claiming that it is completely acceptable to discriminate a user for anti-vandalism efforts? From your response, it seems to me that you clearly refused to understand my point of view and are claiming that I am indeed related to Paquito590. Why? Why do you administrators always pride yourself in bashing users when they actually have proved they are good to Wikipedia? But oh well, I guess Adding The Truth is right, you guys completely ignore our reasoning and choose to punish people for simply correctly claiming they have done nothing wrong. &#42;90Aa (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, exactly what I thought. No response. Oh well, at least I now know that my theory is correct, that you administrators discriminate users just for engaging in anti-vandalistic POSITIVE actions. Ok, well in that case maybe a lawsuit against Wikipedia administration should be in order?


 * On another note, many of you administrators have the tendency to just decline unblock requests, no unblock request is ever good enough for consideration, in spite of editors like me actually demonstrating intent to positively contribute. I hope Wikimedia staff look into Wikipedia's administration practices and stop these abusive administrator actions. &#42;90Aa (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know your talk page access was removed and you can't reply, but it looks like MaxSem (or Max Semenik) really hates you or something. He didn't even respond to your messages. He just straight up revoked your talk page access because he didn't like your message. These actions indeed prove MaxSem is discriminating you by preventing you from making your argument. I'd indeed recommend you sue Wikipedia administration and let your lawyer know how MaxSem refused to work with you to find a reasonable unblock. (By the way, any admin removing this comment also proves they are discriminating people and don't deserve to be admins. Sorry if this offends you admins, but how else can we tell you the truth?) If you're interested *90Aa, you can appeal again at WP:UTRS. Cheers. 2602:306:CC0B:CD20:493B:7EEF:B4A4:C3D (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with both of you. *90Aa clearly abused SPI by claiming blocked accounts had an association with the banned user. He wasted administrator's time. As for why Max Semenik revoked your talk page access without discussing with you, I believe he saw no need to argue with you given the arrogant tone you used in your messages and unblock request. He already foresaw that this discussion would break out into a massively long line of arguments leading to no consensus in understanding the block or in finding a more reasonable ground to unblock. Also, you marked your unblock request as accepted when in reality it was declined. That's why Max Semenik refused to discuss with you and cut your talk page access. The World Atlas (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Supporters of unblock
''Calling all Wikipedians! We need your help in voicing support for the unblock of *90Aa. He claims to have been blocked unfairly and attempted to discuss with a reviewing admin (MaxSem) about his block. MaxSem revoked his talk page access just because he didn't like the message and the idea of discussing the block with him. Please show support for *90Aa's unblock! Together we can prove his innocence and the fact that admins wrongly blocked him. Please sign using four tildes below if you think *90Aa is correct and should at least be given the opportunity to discuss his block on this talk page.''
 * Support as proposer. 2602:306:CC0B:CD20:493B:7EEF:B4A4:C3D (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Opposers of unblock
''If you believe *90Aa incorrectly interpreted his block and there are indeed good reasons to keep him blocked, sign with four tildes below. Please give an explanation or endorse another user's explanation for why *90Aa should remain blocked.''
 * Strong oppose - Clearly this user incorrectly accused three already blocked users of being associated with Blu Aardvark and made administrators waste their time in not only determining that those accounts had no connection with the banned editor but also in investigating whether this user had any correlation with the banned editor. He clearly abused SPI and was blocked fair and square. Keep him blocked indefinitely. The World Atlas (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutral
Vote neutral by signing with four tildes below if you do not have an opinion about *90Aa's block or if you are unsure of taking a position on the matter.

Discussion pertaining to this unblock petition
''Feel free to discuss *90Aa's block below. You may present arguments for or against *90Aa prior to making a vote. It is recommended that the blocking admin and unblock request reviewer state their points of view so all parties get a better understanding of *90Aa's block.'' '''IMPORTANT: Administrators who remove the above sections and block the proposer (creator of this discussion) are subject to intense penalties on behalf of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, including potential desysopping on the basis of discrimination, violation of Freedom of Speech as outlined in the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution and refusal to work with the blocked user to find a reasonable understanding and validity for his block. Please respect these sections and give opportunity to understand *90Aa's block in-depth.'''
 * Closing Comment. This discussion has been inactive far too long and administrators who reviewed this block all agree that *90Aa's block should not be lifted due to abusing WP:SPI. Closing. 64.60.149.69 (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)