Drilou

FYI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Natureium (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I am the supposed 'victim' of this 'threat'. It was actually a statement in my defense against a different block proposal that was supported by the same administrator. At no point did I feel even slightly nervous reading this comment. Nor did it literally call for violence -- literally, it said violence was impractical. So this is a curious case of a "death threat" that neither calls for death nor is in any way threatening, which did not disturb its 'victim' but was instead welcome. For this reason I support the unblock of Drilou immediately or at any time, without conditions. But I also opposed the block during the very brief discussion at AN/I, as did several others, apparently without effect. Wnt (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

+1. I support a lifting of this block provided that Drilou admits that it was a foot in mouth moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've unblocked; there was a clear consensus not to block at the ANI discussion, and another one is forming that the block was wrong. However, Drilou, there was also a clear consensus that your comment was unhelpful. First, sarcasm never works around here. Second, whether intended as sarcasm or hyperbole or what have you, that kind of violent imagery introduced into an already-volatile discussion will never make things better, and really is disruptive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry, Drilou, I failed to pick up on your sarcasm and took your comments at face value. My bad. As a sarcastic person myself, I've definitely gotten myself in to hot water in this exact same situation, and IMO it's usually a good idea to tag your sarcasm with a /s tag to prevent these kinds of misunderstandings. Still, the error in this case was mine, and again, I apologize. Best, ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wow, I thought that whole thing was over when the original thread was closed and I completely missed this entire discussion at AN/I as well as my blocking and unblocking. Thank you Wnt for your intervention and Floquenbeam for recognising sarcasm, as well as everyone who opposed my block (except that one guy who first opposed it but then changed his mind once he realised I wasn't an actual murderous antifa after all). Drilou (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GirthSummit _(blether) 22:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)