| Revision as of 16:47, 16 April 2007 editH (talk | contribs)23,582 edits →WP:RFCN← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:31, 16 April 2007 edit undoChairboy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,155 edits →WP:RFCN: UnblockNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| :There is not a consensus to allow, I did not block under any sort of consensus at RFCN, but through my own judgment. I suggest you bring this to ANI, because a lack of consensus at RFCN does not invalidate my block. I am going out for a couple hours. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | :There is not a consensus to allow, I did not block under any sort of consensus at RFCN, but through my own judgment. I suggest you bring this to ANI, because a lack of consensus at RFCN does not invalidate my block. I am going out for a couple hours. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Your block isn't invalid, I just think it was a bit hasty. As I mentioned, I'll unblock the user for now (on my own judgment) and bring this to AN/I for comment if you'd like. - ]</small> (]) 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:31, 16 April 2007
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
| User talk:HighInBC/Header |
Adding sockblock to sockpuppeteer pages
I know what you are trying to do by this, simply stop them falling into the tempory category, but, why this template? As sockblock is for sockpuppets, not sockpuppeteers, and adding sockblock results them in looking like a sockpuppet. The whole idea is crazy. Retiono Virginian 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. I noticed you manually removed a sockpuppeteer from the temporary userpage category. You can do so more easily by using {{Sockpuppeteer|blocked}} and removing the indefinite block template (see example). :) —{admin} Pathoschild 18:44:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate input
Ryan, as a username expert, would you care to offer an opinion on this? RJASE1 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi High
Is this what we're talking about? NikoSilver 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Help Please
There is a vandal on here who is trying to get me blocked, I don't know why, he is User:Glfootball92.
Southluver 12:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like everything was taken care of. InBC 14:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Surprise
Now this was a pleasant surprise to discover on Misplaced Pages! Cheers, and keep up the good work. :-) --HappyCamper 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. InBC 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:RFCN
Hi there, I've responded to your block message for User:Spammyou on RFCN with a request that you unblock pending completion of the discussion, and I've outlined some reasons why I believe the block was a bit premature. The discussion may end with consensus to disallow the username, but it hasn't gotten there yet. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do not need a consensus at WP:RFCN to give a username block. If it is violation of the username policy then any admin can block at any time. The policy specifically mentions spam, and it gives me the impression of the intent to do so. InBC 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- As the RFCN discussion shows that there is not a consensus to block and I disagree that it violates, I'll unblock the user, but I want to consult with you first. I'll wait a little bit before doing it if you have any concerns. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't need a consensus to block. Unless there is a clear consensus to allow I don't see how any lack of consensus overrides my decision to block. InBC 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is not a consensus to allow, I did not block under any sort of consensus at RFCN, but through my own judgment. I suggest you bring this to ANI, because a lack of consensus at RFCN does not invalidate my block. I am going out for a couple hours. InBC 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your block isn't invalid, I just think it was a bit hasty. As I mentioned, I'll unblock the user for now (on my own judgment) and bring this to AN/I for comment if you'd like. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)