User talk:Feristos despoton

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
Blocked 48h for repeated politically motivated vandalism to an image description page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ωστε θες να με σουτάρεις?
Ρε παλικάρι, : τούτο δω το μουνόπανο μπορεί μεν να είναι κουτόφραγκος, όμως δεν του αρέσει ιδιαιτέρως να τον βρίζουν πίσω απ' την πλάτη του. Πρόσεξε να μη σε σουτάρουν εσένα, έτσι που πας, πας γυρεύοντας. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again
For repeating the same POV-motivated vandalism on the same image page. 55h this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note that the disputed image is one Futper created himself (and its not the first image that FP has made himself that includes Greek territory and was disputed as unscientific). Regardless if the image is ultimately weighed in as valid or not.... FP appears to be in a conflict of interest in this instance. The situation should have been left to other admins to weigh in on. Just because FP is an admin doesn't give him special ownership or insight into the validity of the articles he himself choses to edit (especially when IMO he appears to consistently take an anti-Greek POV in his article contributions). The  Wikipedia admin code of conduct explicitly states....


 * An admin should not block a user if they are not neutral with respect to that user, or have a conflict of interest. For instance, an admin blocking a user for an edit war involving that same admin is abusing his or her power.


 * Admins are entrusted with additional abilities, but do not have special rights beyond those of regular editors. Like everybody else, admins are expected to behave in a civil manner, to not engage in revert wars and to not claim ownership of articles.


 * IMO the block should have been left to another admin to do. --Crossthets (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)