User talk:Axmann8

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Current unblock request

 * As you can see I've placed this on hold while awaiting comment from Black Kite. I also have a few other concerns that I would like addressed while we are waiting. It's been about fifteen years since I last shaved my head and put on braces and boots, but it's safe to say if we had met back then we would probably have been on two different sides of a very nasty fight. I'm telling you this so that you understand that I get what the skinhead culture is about having once been a part of it myself, albeit with a staunchly anti-racist crew. I will endeavor not to let our ideological differences interfere with how this request is handled. That being said, there is the issue of your username. We would not allow a user called BinLaden8 or Mugave8 or Stalin8 or even McCarthy8 to edit under such a name, so I would like to get your thoughts on changing it something a bit more neutral. Ideally, something not at all related to Nazism would be good. Usernames that invoke any type of ideology are not a good idea, as it adds a "point of view subtext" to any edit you make, no matter how minor. Also, you say you would voluntarily topic ban yourself. I would like you to define specifically what areas you would ban yourself from. I hope you don't mind me adding some section breaks in order to make this easier to navigate. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I blocked Axmann indefinitely mainly on the basis of this comment in the AN/I thread about whether he should actually be blocked. I think the consensus there was reasonably clear anyway.  His block log doesn't give me a huge amount of hope that he could be a productive contributor, either.  If he is to be unblocked, I think it'd have to be under mentorship (and also note that he was under a topic ban from political subjects). Black Kite 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Though I don't know his age, it is my impression that this user is relatively young, and it is not impossible that the user has matured since March. There were some circumstances regarding the original block that I regard as unfortunate, he was given a lot of attention which resulted in a very steep learning curve. A more calm environment would have better odds. I'd be willing to act as mentor. I do however agree that mentorship and a ban from political subjects are prerequisites. henrik  • talk  07:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While I would like to assume good faith here.  Evading a community ban does not set a person up for success in getting unblocked. I would like to see the following before any unblock. 1. An admission from Axe of disruptive editing.  2. An admission of repeated block evasion including sockpuppeting. 3. An apology for 1 and 2. and finally the contributions made through this IP.  Only then should we consider the unblock.  If we decide to unblock, mentorship would be in order and some encouragement would be well placed.  Good Luck Axe.--Adam in MO Talk 15:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I've also asked a few other users involved in the original block discussions to comment here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you confirm which ip you've been editing from? Based on your comments at your former mentor's page I'm assuming it's User:75.186.104.169. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is indeed User:75.186.104.169. I asked him to confirm his IP by posting to my talk page earlier. henrik  • talk  19:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I admit that I have engaged in the past (and not long before this unban request was made) in disrupting editing. However, I will admit that the only time it was intentionally disrupting was with the "cry more" comment. My past comments, like the one Bugs showed, I now know were disruptive by WP standards, however they were not meant to disrupt at the time I made them. I see now that they are disruptive and I stipulate that if I make similar comments in the future, it will be considered intentional disruption. I simply wanted to state on that part that I did not INTEND for the comments to be disruptive.
 * Simply to state for the record, I WAS, however, met with disdain over my skinhead userbox, although there are "Obama pride" userboxes, "masculist" userboxes, "gay pride" userboxes, and "feminist" userboxes. Those userboxes were ones I had observed before I created the skinhead one. I did feel it was unfair to make a distinction between other types of "pride" userboxes and mine. I will not recreate other "pride" userboxes as I know they are not allowed due to Wikipedia's neutral nature, but I would ask that other "pride" userboxes be met with disapproval, just to be fair.
 * To respond to number 2, I completely and honestly did not know that I wasn't allowed to edit from my previous IP address. I thought that my name was banned (as to prevent me from making edits to secure pages and participating in the WP community), but that I was allowed to make edits from my IP. I did, however, in one of my previous unban requests, admit that I was making edits from my IP, and I will admit that yes, I was editing from my IP. I simply thought that my IP would have been banned if I wasn't allowed to edit from it. To my knowledge, my IP hasn't change since then (it could have though, but I did not change it intentionally)
 * And as for what I mean by a political block, whatever the admins see as fit. I planned joining Wikipedia Project Law, and I personally do not see that as a political area (as I would only be making corrective, grammer and spelling type edits for a while, not sociocentric edits such as dictating NPOV, etc), but if the admins determine that a part of my unban will be to abstain from Project Law, I will do that as well for a time.
 * So yes, I admit to (and apologize for) both disruptive editing and sockpuppetry.
 * -Axmann8  ( Talk )  22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And the username? Do you have any thoughts on changing it to something not involving Nazism? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I never meant for the name to have any meaning behind it, I simply thought it was a nice name name.
 * But, if it is mandatory that I must change my username to have user privileges restored, then yes.
 * However, I would prefer to keep it, if it's not much problem. I have used this username on many sites,
 * and it's simply easier to remember. I don't think most people even know who Artur Axmann is.
 * But, like I said, if it is mandatory that it be changed, I will change it.
 * -Axmann8  ( Talk )  22:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I really do not see why you summarily denied my unban request even though there is a user named Axmann. I've duly noted that his account is not banned. I'd like an arbcom request over this, or something. Kite has not rendered an opinion here, you were sounding like you'd compromise with me, and Henrik believes I deserve another chance. As I've repeatedly said, I DID NOT KNOW that I wasn't allowed to edit under my IP. I thought that I was allowed to edit from my IP because I wasn't in the WP community at least. I'd really like this to be reconsidered... As Henrik said, my learning curve was EXTREMELY deep as I was under intense scrutiny. It's been 6 months since I was banned. I have matured much over that period, and I would really appreciate another chance. I apologize for any edits or comments that were of offense or against policy.
 * Blocking me forever will not contribute to the encyclopedia at all. I question everyone here, why would I go through all this effort to simply cause trouble? If I was just in the mood to cause trouble somewhere I could go to a different website, and all of my edits can be reversed in less than a second. I think there is much to gain, and nothing to lose, from restoring my user privileges.
 * Finally, I will ask: is keeping me banned a true effort to improve the encyclopedia (even though I've proved above that it is not), or is it a conspiracy? OrangeMike, an administrator obviously had a conflict of interest resulting in my original ban (his userboxes show that he is very politically left, however I am politically right).
 * I am simply asking for fairness.
 * -Axmann8  ( Talk )  07:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no other users with "Axmann" in their name barring a blocked sockpuppet. Secondly, Wikipedia doesn't do conspiracies. If others thought OrangeMike had a conflict of interest and blocked you simply because you support the other end of the political spectrum, another admin would have intervened (and to me, it sounds like you're blaming others again). Your argument about not bothering to waste your time trying to be unblocked is also a bit flawed, since a vandal by nature wastes their time doing edits that will be reverted minutes later. I'm not an admin so I have no say in what happens, but from what I understand of this case, I believe Beeblebrox was correct in his action. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 15:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why respond here? You weren't even involved in the original block, you have no clue what happened. And also, Henrik even had serious doubt about whether my ban was fair, so please don't try to railroad me without knowing what happened. You're not an admin, an original participant, or even an interested party so how did you find this page anyway?
 * I'm very upset that you're referring to me as a "vandal", and Henrik will tell you that I'm nowhere near a vandal. I am simply a person who believes in fairness, and this is not fair.

other unblock requests

 * Note: As your request has been thoroughly reviewed, further unblock requests, especially repeating the same reasoning, will merely waste admin time. I've protected this talk page from further edits, because three reviews of your request is sufficient. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You aren't blocked because of the userbox.  Grsz 11  03:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to repeat that very clearly. You were not blocked because of the userbox, Ax; that would have been an injustice (and a display of appalling ignorance on the part of the blocking admin). You were blocked because you voluntarily agreed to abstain from political edits, and then you broke your word, more than once, with a snide citation of WP:IAR as your only "excuse" for doing so. That is what got you blocked. Don't pretend otherwise. I have gone to a great deal of effort to be as fair as possible to somebody who clearly is of a different ideology than I am, and who I suspect may be worse than that; but even we Quakers have our limits. This community gave you multiple chances, and you blew them all. Farewell. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's bull, and you know it. You set me up. -Axmann8  ( Talk )  01:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody made you say what you said or do what you did. There's nobody to blame for your own words but yourself.  Grsz 11  03:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, on the contrary, I was provoked by Baseball Bugs. I do believe that someone has used "provocation" as an excuse before. Consistency, please. -Axmann8  ( Talk )  06:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "I was provoked" is a liberal's excuse. It's the "look what you made me do" game. The conservative and/or libertarian position is that you yourself are responsible for your own actions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The date is : July 29, 2024 Please put your signature on additions to this page. '''  Note : If you talk to me in a threatening, biting, crass, sarcastic, violent, angry, or  negative manner, I will ignore you. Remain civil or your comments here will have no meaning whatsoever to me, will be formally stricken from the record, treated  as a comment that was never made, will be removed, and will and will always be,  in every application, negated and revoked. Thank you. '''


 * You're already aware that you cannot remove previously-declined unblock requests while blocked - care to re-add them? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ by myself. I'll let someone else decide (I'm not around enough to deal with the consequences) but I hope someone will consider unblocking this account now that we have a sincere unblock request. It can be re-blocked if the user's behavior hasn't improved. -- Luk  talk 10:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that, Bwilkins; mistake on my part. -Axmann8  ( Talk )  13:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There seem to be quite a bit of other unblock requests specific to this block as well. I've restored those for you.  Kuru   (talk)  13:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Kuru. As stated above in my unblock request, I fully admit and take responsibility for my past actions. That said, I have matured quite a bit and have waited for over a year before editing Wikipedia again. I believe (and hope others agree) that people can change, and do change. I can tell everyone, without a doubt, that I have changed for the better. -Axmann8  ( Talk )  13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you willing to change and come back?
I didn't see any traction with your last un-block request. If you are sorry for what you have done and are willing to come back with out being disruptive I would like to help you out. But YOU have to own YOUR actions. The community will want to see YOU disavow specifically your entrapment claims and distance yourself from your claims of persecution. Are you willing to do this?--Adam in MO Talk 17:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)