| Revision as of 13:06, 8 August 2017 editDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Oversighters, Administrators263,845 edits →Block: I'd support an unblock← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:09, 8 August 2017 edit undoDrmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,426 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| *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) | *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) | ||
| **I'd support an unblock also. I suggest that the IP restore the unblock request, perhaps slightly toned down. ] ] 13:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC) | **I'd support an unblock also. I suggest that the IP restore the unblock request, perhaps slightly toned down. ] ] 13:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC) | ||
| *], haven't heard back from {{U|Berean Hunter}} yet (or from ]). If you're OK with an unblock, go for it--I got domestic matters to attend to, including coffee. Perhaps one of my colleagues (], ], ]--HA! that's timely!, ]) has an interest in the matter too. ] (]) 13:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:09, 8 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)
- 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)