Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:41, 29 January 2012

You do realise you need to inform the other involved users of your addition to the DRN noticeboard. Adam4267 (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a neutral at DRN and, in light of the block that was imposed just after Adam's posting, I've notified those who weren't already aware of PG's request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Note

• I am quite happy to unblock under two conditions. (a) you stick to this username and this username only. (b) you discuss all edits related to Scottish football and do not engage in any edit-warring whatsoever. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Previous block expired, which was for geniune content dispute. "Obvious sock obvious" is not a reason for an indefinate block. I admitted to contributing by IP previously and have now made an account. I note the pretext for the block was changed, after the event

Decline reason:

Black Kite's unblock offer is reasonable. You should take it.. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• You came back off a block (as an account rather than an IP) and immediately made the same edits, without discussion, that you were blocked for as an IP editor. What, exactly, did you expect to happen? See my note above, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I consider it to be an improper block since the initial block was for valid edits in a content dispute (as you admit here). I also DID use discussion. There has been no transgression of rules whatsoever since I registered an account. You seem to be in some doubt about your justification for this indefinate block so I would like another admin to take a look. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's your prerogative, though I would obviously rather you agreed to the caveats I mentioned above, in which case you could be unblocked immediately. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Black Kite is correct here. WP:Sock puppetry expressly notes that accounts or IPs evading sanctions may be blocked for it. However, assuming this is your first account the block duration should be reduced to that of the IP block, instead of being indefinite. —Jeremy v^_^v 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

They didn't evade a sanction - the IP block had expired - that was my error. However, what they did do on creating an account was immediately resume editing in the same manner as they did as an IP - indeed, making exactly the same edit without discussion. Hence my conditions on unblock. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

More background on Porridge's previous use of IPs is at User talk:Black Kite#Thanks. The ANI discussion which led to the IP block is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive715#Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think per Jeremy there is no justification for an indefinate block. The offending edit was only to tag sections under dispute on the talk page. And my next edit was a rationale on said talk page. Merits a lifetime block? Really? PorridgeGobbler (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite does not mean infinite. You agree to the unblock conditions I have set above, I'll unblock you right now. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Who am I supposed to discuss my edits with? You will note that I have always availed myself of the talk page in any case. Having never engaged in sock-puppetry or edit warring I am puzzled at the other requests but obviously agree to them. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, you discuss your edits with the significant number of people who disagree with them. That's fairly obvious, surely. Anyway, I'm going to unblock you now - just don't restore the edits you made without a consensus, because you're way past WP:BRD now. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Accept reason:

per above discussion Black Kite (t) (c) 18:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Sarcastic comments such as this aren't necessary - you're just going to wind more people up. GiantSnowman 20:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

January 2012

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, some of your recent edits have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The warning was given for following comment SFL1 was never on the list until last year when it was edit-warred in by sectarian editors with a COI' ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)