User talk:Buzybeez

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

unjustified

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=unjustified |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=unjustified |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=unjustified |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I seemed to have been blocked for disagreeing with an edit made by an admin who is being reviewed for a massive amount of controversial edits[1] After updating a page with verifiable information from a governmental source, it was quickly reverted by the above admin and my account was blocked. Is editing pages with verifiable information grounds for blocking? Yet all of these [2] are permitted? If so, then I must be confused about wikipedia policy and would appreciate administrative review and reply for clarification. Thanks.Buzybeez (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed some of your recent edits, and I don't see anything that would warrant an indefinite block. I am going to contact the blocking administrator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mike here, an indef block with no warning is not something that should be done often outside of sockpuppets. All I see is mainly anti-vandal work, and one, just one, revert of JzG in all of march which he had a conflict with in the past on the same article. Kwsn-pub (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In deference to a fellow admin, I will not unblock yet, but I also would like to see his evidence. Unless it can be shown that this is, for example, an abused multiple account, I see no readily obvious evidence in the recent contribs that shows a block was needed. Lets see what Nick has to say, but I would endorse an unblock here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]