User talk:2.25.45.251: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:24, 7 August 2017 editAnthony Bradbury (talk \| contribs)25,053 edits expanded earlier comment← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:09, 7 August 2017 edit undoDrmies (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,336 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:

	{{ping\|Drmies}} {{ping\|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, . --<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 14:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)		{{ping\|Drmies}} {{ping\|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, . --<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 14:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
			*Thank you ]. 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, ] (]) 15:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:09, 7 August 2017

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 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)

Revision as of 14:24, 7 August 2017 editAnthony Bradbury (talk \| contribs)25,053 edits expanded earlier comment← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:09, 7 August 2017 edit undoDrmies (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,336 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:

	{{ping\|Drmies}} {{ping\|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, . --<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 14:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)		{{ping\|Drmies}} {{ping\|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, . --<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 14:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
			*Thank you ]. 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, ] (]) 15:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)