| Revision as of 23:13, 10 November 2007 edit24.19.33.82 (talk) response← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:00, 11 November 2007 edit undoRlevse (talk | contribs)93,195 edits approveNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{anonblock}} | |||
| {| align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;" | |||
| <div class="messagebox cleanup" style="width:100%; text-align:left;"> | |||
| |- | |||
| <p>]<span style="color: #ba0000;">'''Note:'''</span> Please check your <tt>block log</tt> linked below. If there are no blocks listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been ]. Please remove this request and follow these ] instead. We cannot unblock you otherwise.<br /> | |||
| | valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | {{tick|40}} | |||
| '''This ] is asking that their block be reviewed:''' | |||
| | style="padding: 0.1em" | | |||
| * ] (<span style="font-size:0.9em;" | |||
| class="plainlinks"> • • ] • ] • }} • )</span>''' | |||
| '''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s): | |||
| * <u>Reason for unblocking:</u> | |||
| <br><br>believe him<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <p style="margin-left:2em;">I can't see how violates any policy, or supports an assumption of Isn't it normal for blocking administrators to leave a message explaining why they've blocked?] 22:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <hr /> | |||
| ''Request handled by:'' <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="font-size:0.9em;">'''] use only:''' If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following as notification.<br></div> | |||
| <!-- Request accepted (after-block request) --> | |||
| :<tt>{{unblock reviewed|1=I can't see how violates any policy, or supports an assumption of Isn't it normal for blocking administrators to leave a message explaining why they've blocked?] 22:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)|decline=reason — ~~~~}}</tt> | |||
| |} | |||
| <div style="font-size:0.9em;">If you accept the request (note that you CANNOT unblock yourself), replace the unblock template with {{tlx|tlx|unblock|reason}}, and post the following directly underneath the unblock template:</div> | |||
| :<tt>{{subst:Request accepted|reason}}</tt></div> | |||
| {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk|{{{category|]}}}|}} | |||
| :You were editing in order to elicit a negative response. Many people would consiter that to be trolling. It's not helpfull to the on-going process of improving the encyclopedia. Please don't do it any more... ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC) | :You were editing in order to elicit a negative response. Many people would consiter that to be trolling. It's not helpfull to the on-going process of improving the encyclopedia. Please don't do it any more... ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:00, 11 November 2007
 Y
|
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Request handled by: — Rlevse • Talk • 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC) |
- You were editing in order to elicit a negative response. Many people would consiter that to be trolling. It's not helpfull to the on-going process of improving the encyclopedia. Please don't do it any more... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- It wasn't my intention to elicit a negative response, but to wryly observe: The reason why participants are having a difficult time with the wording is because they're trying to find a policy which allows their own socks, and those of their friends, while disallowing socks of those they dislike. Some of the participants are themselves sockpuppets. The red lines that are being proposed, such as participating in mainspace, but not project discussions, are just random tangential facts which are being reified as a substitute for what is actually desired: a trusted (by itself) in-group which can use socks freely, and an out-group which can't. The fact that this observation was removed and led to a block only supports this interpretation. Posting under an IP is not "abusive sockpuppetry" when there is no active usernamed account or evasion involved. To suggest that administrators should stop trying to rig the system and follow what they ask of others - or stop asking it - shouldn't be controversial.24.19.33.82 23:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)