| Revision as of 21:46, 25 July 2013 editKwamikagami (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors475,418 edits →Standing invitation to unblock← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:46, 25 July 2013 edit undoAnthony Bradbury (talk | contribs)25,053 edits decline unblockNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| {{unblock|Can I utilize the ] option? I was never given this opportunity that I can recall. Just trying to see what my options could possibly be. Feels like I'm in a Joseph Heller novel. ] (]) 20:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)}} | {{unblock reviewed|Can I utilize the ] option? I was never given this opportunity that I can recall. Just trying to see what my options could possibly be. Feels like I'm in a Joseph Heller novel. ] (]) 20:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)|decline=You have the largest block log I have ever seen; 24 blocks, not counting variations, changes and extensions. You were told that the last block, after a number of last chances, was forever. And that's it.--<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 21:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)}} | ||
| * If the Eliminatesoapboxing account was SA's, the account edited for one day, and made one article edit and some talk page edits. That was 2 months ago. It appears SA has been indefinitely blocked for trying to circumvent a 3 month block ''4 years ago'', so what utility does this block have? If SA is unblocked, there is considerably more for him to lose if he does sock. So unblocking is more likely to reduce any potential socking. Note that I do not believe anyone has regarded any of SA's edits as problematic, and the most beneficial situation to the encyclopedia is if he is unblocked, ] (]) 21:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | * If the Eliminatesoapboxing account was SA's, the account edited for one day, and made one article edit and some talk page edits. That was 2 months ago. It appears SA has been indefinitely blocked for trying to circumvent a 3 month block ''4 years ago'', so what utility does this block have? If SA is unblocked, there is considerably more for him to lose if he does sock. So unblocking is more likely to reduce any potential socking. Note that I do not believe anyone has regarded any of SA's edits as problematic, and the most beneficial situation to the encyclopedia is if he is unblocked, ] (]) 21:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:46, 25 July 2013
Standing invitation to unblock
This is a request that any administrator who wants to please unblock me in the spirit of WP:IAR and owing to the fact that this is not an arbcom block but merely a block by User:Timotheus Canens or User:Jpgordon, Wikipedians who seem to believe that indefinite blocks ought to be punitive instead of preventative since neither has submitted evidence that any of the claimed edits they wish to connect to my person were actually harmful to the encyclopedia. I quote from Misplaced Pages:Block#Evasion_of_blocks about when administrators are supposed to extend blocks. Apparently they "may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block." According to the wording, if there is no blockable offense committed while evading the block, the original block cannot be extended. I submit that there is no evidence that there has been any "blockable behavior while evading the block" done by any accounts or claimed IPs that checkusers are associating with my editing (of course, much of this evidence is private and on the basis of UA and IP evidence that the checkusers hold close to their chests, but even still, I find nothing wrong with any of the edits that have been made by any of the claimed "block evasion" accounts).
Thanks.
jps (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
ජපස (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Can I utilize the Template:Second Chance option? I was never given this opportunity that I can recall. Just trying to see what my options could possibly be. Feels like I'm in a Joseph Heller novel. jps (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have the largest block log I have ever seen; 24 blocks, not counting variations, changes and extensions. You were told that the last block, after a number of last chances, was forever. And that's it.--Anthony Bradbury 21:46, 25 July 2013 (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.
- If the Eliminatesoapboxing account was SA's, the account edited for one day, and made one article edit and some talk page edits. That was 2 months ago. It appears SA has been indefinitely blocked for trying to circumvent a 3 month block 4 years ago, so what utility does this block have? If SA is unblocked, there is considerably more for him to lose if he does sock. So unblocking is more likely to reduce any potential socking. Note that I do not believe anyone has regarded any of SA's edits as problematic, and the most beneficial situation to the encyclopedia is if he is unblocked, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- One of our best editors when it comes to taking on entrenched fringe POV's on esoteric subjects. There should be an ARBCOM decision or at least a clear policy reason for blocking someone so dedicated and helpful to the encyclopedia. — kwami (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)