2.25.45.251

Block

Berean Hunter, we typically allow blocked users some leeway ("venting"). It is not obvious at all that the initial block was justified, and I think User:Anthony Bradbury would agree with that, and if the initial block (by User:Winhunter) was wrong, so was the third one, in my opinion. I'll just add that the user has complained to ArbCom, in their usual acerbic manner which no doubt contributed to these blocks being placed, and though ArbCom is still (slowly) discussing the matter I think it is worthwhile discussing this. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: @Berean Hunter: I feel that this editor's style of inter-personal editing does not help his case, but yes, I believe that the first block was inappropriate. And it follows that this throws doubt on the second and third, as both have occurred as a direct result of the first block, albeit with the aforementioned acerbic comments from the blocked editor contributing the situation. The admin who posted the initial block, who has a low editing frequency, has not responded to my comment on his talk page of over a week ago, . --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Anthony. Berean, I really think we should allow this editor to get back in. Their, what shall we call it, rude behavior is in itself not enough for a civility block, and is in part explained by less than carefully explained reverts which sometimes go against editorial consensus and common sense. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd support an unblock also. I suggest that the IP restore the unblock request, perhaps slightly toned down. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:Anthony Bradbury, haven't heard back from Berean Hunter yet (or from User:Winhunter). If you're OK with an unblock, go for it--I got domestic matters to attend to, including coffee. Perhaps one of my colleagues (User:Mkdw, User:Opabinia regalis, User:Doug Weller--HA! that's timely!, User:Newyorkbrad) has an interest in the matter too. Drmies (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• • I will now restore talk page access. If you still wish to be unblocked post a further request and I, or another interested admin, will attend to it.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, I wish to be unblocked. I was blocked without justification, blocked more for complaining about being blocked without justification, and blocked yet more for simply making good edits. What's the point of not simply unblocking but instead making me jump through another hoop? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus. OK. You're on what us assholes call a "civility restriction", which doesn't just mean "no cussing"--it also means no jerking people around, condescending them, or really acting in a way that is not accepted even in semi-polite society. I tell you what, as a completely uninvolved administrator I will impose a 1R restriction for the next three months, starting NOW. That means you may not revert when another editor has reverted you: as far as I can tell that's when you start yelling at them (which is, if I had to guess, why you were really blocked--but that's just a hunch). You may, of course, protest, in civil terms, on the article talk page. Hell, you can ping me if you like and I will be happy to look into it; it's not like I got anything better to do. If you disagree with this, you are more than welcome to file a case at WP:AN. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not think I have jerked anyone around or condescended them. In fact, that is what happened to me. Getting blocked for making good edits was a bit of a jerkaround, was it not? Being told to "politely" ask the blocking admin why they blocked me was extremely condescending, was it not? And being clearly impossible for me to do, also a jerkaround. Having to appeal all the way to the arbitration committee to get an obviously wrong block lifted was a massive and unnecessary jerkaround. You seem to want to guess why I was really blocked. I was really blocked because an administrator was either careless or malicious and violated the blocking policy. Not for any other reason. I do not think your arbitrary restrictions are in any way reasonable. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The whole behaviour and gameplay of this editor is the likely cause of the grief. (especially highlighted by immediately responses above.) The first and second blocks were really justified by saying things like "Don't be stupid." [1] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [2] (then delete it to avoid scrutiny!). Editors here are all volunteers and should not be subjected to such behaviour, and it avoids the trumping policy of all - WP:GF - good faith.

NOTE: I do suspect this unregistered User might be just another sockpuppet of the now indefinitely blocked Tetra quark [3], who also deletes Talkpage information they don't like or even blocks, also edits astronomical pages, and equally shows similar poor and rude behaviour. Are you Tetra quark? Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

2.25.45.251 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Oh, come on. Blocked with a false claim of vandalism, blocked for complaining about that, blocked for editing again after being blocked, and now blocked again not even two days after being unblocked, because someone's decided I'm someone? Just when I thought we were getting somewhere. Every edit I made was intended to improve an article. Every edit I've made did improve an article. So why, yet again, have I been blocked? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are community banned, as Wikipedia:Banning policy#Site ban states : "An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances ..... The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." Cheerio. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:13, 10 August 2017 (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.

---