" 

  
 {{unblock | then why has no mention of false warnings been made?, or any justification or explanation be applied to how any warning I gave were false? 

  
 This is gross abuse of admin powers. 

 2 admins have responded to my un-block request... But neither of them have given 1 example of a false warning I have given. 

 In fact... I have had 2 admins respond, and the only mention of the alleged false warnings so far has been... 

 ""You're blocked for the false warnings you issued"" 

 that's all the admins have stated... That's a claim... Nothing more. 

  
 How about this?... I have a claim that admins are abusing powers on me... And as evidence I have a page of gross misconduct from them on my talk page... For example I have the first admin who responded to me, clearly violating ""good faith"" by calling everything I say, do and think a joke... And refusing to discuss even a single example of the warning ""abuse"" I was blocked for, nor making so much of a mention of it.  The admin does not even attempt to be neutral 

 That's called making a claim and backing it up... Something the admins have not even bothered to do. 

  
 in fact... Here is the entire response from the admins. 

  
 admin 1 ""I understand that you are trying to be funny, but Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia, and not a place to insert pop-culture jokes. Since it looks like all of your edits thus far have been related to your attempt to add your joke about a TV character to the encyclopedia, Wikipedia has nothing to gain by the unblocking of this ip address"" 
 
 admin 2  ""The block is justified; you're too busy talking to stop and listen, it appears. You're blocked for the false warnings you issued; your attempt to insert your personal interpretations of anything into Wikipedia was properly rebuffed, and continuing this behavior won't be tolerated. jpgordon::==( o ) "" 

 .......... 

 Lets ignore for a moment the disgusting violation of good faith and neutrality in there for a moment... And check the contents of those 2 responses. 

 Total mentions there being a claim of false warnings against me that an admin agrees with?...  1  (by the second admin to respond!) 

 total examples of false warnings, or what warnings were false from the ones I had given?  0 

 total explanation of there insights of how or why it is a false warning? 0 

 attempts to explain reasoning for why no warnings were given by an admin before the block? 0 

  
 attempts to claim that my addition to an article that's simply adds factual data is a ""joke"" or ""funny""?... 3 

 what else did the last admin mention?... Oh yes... ""Your attempt to insert your personal interpretations of anything into Wikipedia was properly rebuffed"" 

 did you know... Directly above were I added my addition, this is what it says? 

 ""Debra is emotional and very sensitive. She is stressed out as a housewife, having to put up not only with Ray’s corny jokes and seemingly unhelpful attitude, but more with his obnoxious, family members, who often barge in uninvited, leaving emotional havoc in their wake. Though Ray's parents frustrate her, she rarely shows her feelings to them, resulting in occasional bursts in private of yelling, stomping, and throwing objects."" 

 damn.... Now THAT sounds like a personal interpretation!.. as well as other red flags... Not even an attempt to add a source either! 

 in fact the whole page is mostly just like that. 

 But you don't care about that?.. Do you?... Neither did the last admin?.. Or the person who reverted my addition and flagged me for vandalism because he didn't agree with my addition. 

 That's because your neutrality has been compromised. 

 Unlike the rest of the red flag grade content you have no problem with, I tried to include easy to see facts from the video documentation and added sources to other analysis of it. 

 But this isn't supposed to be about an edit disagreement is it?.. Its supposed to be about why I was banned..  Something you have failed to address as well as the last admin... Preferring to be insulting instead, and grossly violating wikipedias good faith and neutrality standards for admins. 

 Almost no mention of false warnings what-so-ever, in 2 appeals from admins about a block for false warnings!.. Preferring to talk about the content that has you so mad because you didn't like it.  

 You don't care about the warnings or if they are false... The admins didn't even mention it!... You care about stopping me from adding what you don't like... Even though your well aware your not supposed to get final say on that 

  
 Its not your place to take sides...