| Revision as of 05:26, 21 February 2010 editTbsdy lives (talk | contribs)7,977 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:06, 21 February 2010 edit undoDaedalus969 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,809 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| As for the length of the block - the user has a long history of edit-warring and was placed at a 1RR restriction last Oct. (IIRC), but has violated it at least half a dozen times since then. The last occasion was 2 days back, when I only cautioned the user. Note that the user is in the habit of blanking any warnings and notes from their talkpage (and often adding a {{t1|retired}} tag) so one has to look at their talk page history to reconstruct the complete history; see for example and version of the talk page. The user has already served 24 hours, 55 hours and 1 week blocks without any change in behavior (one of those blocks was shortened by me as a show of good faith once the user threatened to retire, but the user broke 3RR once more even before the original block would have expired). Let me know if you need diffs for any of the particular claims. Regards. ] (]) 05:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | As for the length of the block - the user has a long history of edit-warring and was placed at a 1RR restriction last Oct. (IIRC), but has violated it at least half a dozen times since then. The last occasion was 2 days back, when I only cautioned the user. Note that the user is in the habit of blanking any warnings and notes from their talkpage (and often adding a {{t1|retired}} tag) so one has to look at their talk page history to reconstruct the complete history; see for example and version of the talk page. The user has already served 24 hours, 55 hours and 1 week blocks without any change in behavior (one of those blocks was shortened by me as a show of good faith once the user threatened to retire, but the user broke 3RR once more even before the original block would have expired). Let me know if you need diffs for any of the particular claims. Regards. ] (]) 05:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :Regardless of what I was told by whom, I was told by '''an admin''' at 0314 hours that it wasn't vandalism and stopped reverting at that point. So it's your assertion that's patently false. And if you would, please stay on topic; how I manage my talk page has nothing to do with this particular issue. <b>]</b> ] 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC) <b>]</b> ] 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | :Regardless of what I was told by whom, I was told by '''an admin''' at 0314 hours that it wasn't vandalism and stopped reverting at that point. So it's your assertion that's patently false. And if you would, please stay on topic; how I manage my talk page has nothing to do with this particular issue. <b>]</b> ] 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC) <b>]</b> ] 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == ANI notice == | |||
| {{ani-notice|thread=Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy}}— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 09:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Your statement === | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| Your statement here | |||
| <noinclude> | |||
Revision as of 09:06, 21 February 2010
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.February 2010
Radiopathy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I honestly thought I was reverting a vandal. I reported the user at WP:AIV and reported him to an admin. I posted to the AIV admin's talk page. I templated the user's talk page and attempted to start a discussion. I discussed it at the article's talk page. I stopped reverting when the admin who protected the article posted to my talk and told me it wasn't vandalism.
Decline reason:
Per the blocking admin's comments, I think that the block was fair. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 05:26, 21 February 2010 (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.
Cross posting from my talk page:I'd be opposed to an unblock or shortening because, the user was told at 2:16 UTC and again at 2:46 UTC by two different editors that the edits were not vandalism - and made at least 5 more reverts after that. So the unblock reason is patently false.
As for the length of the block - the user has a long history of edit-warring and was placed at a 1RR restriction last Oct. (IIRC), but has violated it at least half a dozen times since then. The last occasion was 2 days back, when I once more only cautioned the user. Note that the user is in the habit of blanking any warnings and notes from their talkpage (and often adding a {{retired}} tag) so one has to look at their talk page history to reconstruct the complete history; see for example this and this version of the talk page. The user has already served 24 hours, 55 hours and 1 week blocks without any change in behavior (one of those blocks was shortened by me as a show of good faith once the user threatened to retire, but the user broke 3RR once more even before the original block would have expired). Let me know if you need diffs for any of the particular claims. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless of what I was told by whom, I was told by an admin at 0314 hours that it wasn't vandalism and stopped reverting at that point. So it's your assertion that's patently false. And if you would, please stay on topic; how I manage my talk page has nothing to do with this particular issue. Radiopathy •talk• 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Radiopathy •talk• 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy. Thank you.— Dædαlus 09:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Your statement
Your statement here