| Revision as of 23:26, 27 January 2012 editBlethering Scot (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers68,211 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:50, 30 May 2012 edit undoAtama (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers17,335 edits Blocked as a sockpuppet after warnings. |
| (10 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
⚫ |
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for ] after being repeatedly warned. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ''']'''] 02:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> |
|
You do realise you need to inform the other involved users of your addition to the DRN noticeboard. ] (]) 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, ] (]) 14:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== August 2011 == |
|
| ⚫ |
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing because your account is being used mainly for ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ] ] 23:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:Uw-deoablock --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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. ] ] 23:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{unblock reviewed|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=Black Kite's unblock offer is reasonable. You should take it.. ] (]) 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
* 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 23:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sorry, but Black Kite is correct here. ] 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. —<font color="228B22">''Jeremy'' v^_^v</font> <sup><small>Components:] ] ]</small></sup> 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. ] ] 10:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::More background on Porridge's previous use of IPs is at ]. The ANI discussion which led to the IP block is at ]. ] (]) 15:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::I think per Jeremy there is no justification for an indefinate block. The offending was only to tag sections under dispute on the talk page. And my was a rationale on said talk page. Merits a lifetime block? Really? ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 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 ] now. ] ] 18:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*{{unblock reviewed|1=|accept=per above discussion ] ] 18:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Your recent edits == |
|
|
|
|
|
Sarcastic comments such as aren't necessary - you're just going to wind more people up. ]] 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 ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. |
|
