"== Unblock requests ==

{{unblock reviewed|1=Sorry for my blurb here, I went in detail elsewhere. If an admins reviews the complete history of astrotheology, they will notice that I've been patient while I had to deal with other editors extreme language at me. That creates a very stressful situation. Please see here for outside opinion. I did not use the same kind of language against Hrafn, and he had no right to immediately jump on my case while I added content to the article. I was the only active contributor to that astrotheology that was adding content to it, even before the AfD process. I noticed it was a stub and started to add content. How am I being disruptive to other there, when there was no other editors that wanted to contribute? I even listed 30 potential sources on the talk page that had mentions of astrotheology. Others could have reviewed them and find if they had anything worthwhile if they actually wanted to be ""an editor of astrotheology"" and *add content*. Hrafn, on the talk page, even labeled me as an atheist and other categorized pov pusher. It is obvious he was against something, but that something wasn't me like he thought, and he couldn't believe otherwise  or choose not to. Somehow this went from something that was just a little beyond a content dispute because of the harassment I got from Hrafn, to where Durova stepped in and it went directly to ArbCom. She did ask about PastorDavid, but I looked and I left evidence on AN/I of why I didn't accept his offer  that is not a refusal to dispute resolution, that is seeing that the one who offered mentor made a questionable vote on an AfD. I felt another mentor/mediator, would be best. (Personal attack/comment redacted by   ) If you look however, I did ask on the talk page for astrotheology to Hrafn about RS/N over the Physico-Theology book... he didn't answer at all to that question, but he went on to despise me instead with more ""egregious misintrepretations."" As for the previous dispute resolution attempts before that Durova noted, those weren't because of disruptive editing. I never caused anybody to leave wikipedia. If you seriously think I did, it would be more appreciate if you mentioned that evidence to support it than just baselessly blame me. The previous mediation was recommended by a mentor, (Comments redacted by   ) I hate the show the mistakes she made also, we aren't all-knowing saints of wikipedia policy from day one. Why did she even bring it old beginnings back up? The computer science related one was dealt with differently since it was called unfair why I got blocked before. After unblock, the consensus continued , and it still sustains today. If I truly was trying to disrupt like Durova claims, don't you think a intentional disrupter would stalk her and revert her edits and such all along. (Comment redacted by   ) It would be a test to see if she requests unblock, but since she made it clear on my talk page she never want to see me again, I really doubted her olive branch. I deleted a section here on my talk page of her ""vanish"" forever bit. I simply did not reply to her, (Comment redacted by   ) You can argue all you want that I changed the section title, which policy does allow for neutral view, (Comments redacted by   ) When ArbCom said this is obvious, I truly don't think he meant to block me... the obvious answer is let the community help  offer to help mediate. I saw absolutely no other offer to help mediate besides PastorDavid's. However, I sent an e-mail to ask her ""why... why.. why..""... but now she is calling it ""obscene,"" and offers to show it to any admin. If you read it(Comment redacted by   ) Like I said on AN/I...|decline=reason — Not only has the user not apologized for obvious bad behavior, but has offered further attacks and emails with multiple four letter words (the G-D word primarily) to his opponents. I see no reason to unblock. The consensus of the couple arbitrators who looked at this was that this was something the community should handle, and the community has handled.   23:39, 6 June 2008 (