| Revision as of 10:18, 14 June 2012 editNmate (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,033 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:34, 14 June 2012 edit undoJBW (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators195,998 edits →June 2012: Comment on unblock requestNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''3 days''' for edit warring on multiple articles. You say that "Bozo1789 is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi", but you have, as far as I can see, presented no evidence to support that statement. If it is "obvious" then it should not be difficult to provide evidence. You may like to take the case to ] when your block ends. (You could have taken it there already, if you had not chosen to edit war.) Considering your history of numerous blocks for edit warring and personal attacks, a three day block seems minimal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. 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. ] (]) 10:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''3 days''' for edit warring on multiple articles. You say that "Bozo1789 is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi", but you have, as far as I can see, presented no evidence to support that statement. If it is "obvious" then it should not be difficult to provide evidence. You may like to take the case to ] when your block ends. (You could have taken it there already, if you had not chosen to edit war.) Considering your history of numerous blocks for edit warring and personal attacks, a three day block seems minimal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. 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. ] (]) 10:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | ||
| {{unblock | reason= What I did does not fall under ] per ] ''"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban"''. Furthermore, I correctly noted in edit summaries that my reverts were made under WP BAN. Said user did not even deny that he is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi.For more information see: Also, said site-banned user continued to edit Misplaced Pages even after his recent throw away account is blocked. See:-> }}--] (]) 10:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | {{unblock | reason= What I did does not fall under ] per ] ''"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban"''. Furthermore, I correctly noted in edit summaries that my reverts were made under WP BAN. Said user did not even deny that he is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi.For more information see: Also, said site-banned user continued to edit Misplaced Pages even after his recent throw away account is blocked. See:-> }}--] (]) 10:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *You may or may not be right about the sockpuppetry, but, even if you are right: | |||
| #Merely asserting that the account is a sockpuppet, without evidence, is dubious justification. You said that it was an "obvious" sockpuppet, in which case it should have been easy to justify your claim. | |||
| #If you really did have enough evidence of sockpuppetry, then you should have reported the fact. Edit warring on such a massive scale as you did without making any attempt at all to get the sockpuppetry issue issue dealt with was not the most constructive way forward. (And, as far as "on such a massive scale as you did" is concerned, I don't believe I have ever come across a case with ''anywhere near'' so much edit warring in so short a period of time.) | |||
| #Some of your reverts restored nonsense, which is not justifiable, no matter what. ] (]) 10:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:34, 14 June 2012
June 2012
Watch them 3RR on Kara Ahmed Pasha. Seems not to be clear vandalism, so the "bright line" rule probably applies here. I warned Bozo1789, so I probably should send you a note too. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Canuck
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Nmate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What I did does not fall under 3RR per WP:BAN "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban". Furthermore, I correctly noted in edit summaries that my reverts were made under WP BAN. Said user did not even deny that he is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi.For more information see: Also, said site-banned user continued to edit Misplaced Pages even after his recent throw away account is blocked. See:->Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=What I did does not fall under ] per ] ''"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban"''. Furthermore, I correctly noted in edit summaries that my reverts were made under WP BAN. Said user did not even deny that he is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi.For more information see: Also, said site-banned user continued to edit Misplaced Pages even after his recent throw away account is blocked. See:-> |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=What I did does not fall under ] per ] ''"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban"''. Furthermore, I correctly noted in edit summaries that my reverts were made under WP BAN. Said user did not even deny that he is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi.For more information see: Also, said site-banned user continued to edit Misplaced Pages even after his recent throw away account is blocked. See:-> |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=What I did does not fall under ] per ] ''"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban"''. Furthermore, I correctly noted in edit summaries that my reverts were made under WP BAN. Said user did not even deny that he is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi.For more information see: Also, said site-banned user continued to edit Misplaced Pages even after his recent throw away account is blocked. See:-> |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
--Nmate (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- You may or may not be right about the sockpuppetry, but, even if you are right:
- Merely asserting that the account is a sockpuppet, without evidence, is dubious justification. You said that it was an "obvious" sockpuppet, in which case it should have been easy to justify your claim.
- If you really did have enough evidence of sockpuppetry, then you should have reported the fact. Edit warring on such a massive scale as you did without making any attempt at all to get the sockpuppetry issue issue dealt with was not the most constructive way forward. (And, as far as "on such a massive scale as you did" is concerned, I don't believe I have ever come across a case with anywhere near so much edit warring in so short a period of time.)
- Some of your reverts restored nonsense, which is not justifiable, no matter what. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)