This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) at 02:37, 16 September 2009 (→Blocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:37, 16 September 2009 by Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) (→Blocked)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages.Blocked
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ /contribs 04:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it is common practice not to punish users who made two reverts in the same article. I saw this numerous times at 3RR. I debated the issues at the article talk page with YMB and Bobbani. I am really surprised how fast you jumped to the gun (in a couple of minutes!) missing a number of previous reports and not allowing me and YMB to tell anything at all at the 3RR. I am sorry for creating problems. I hope this block will still be reviewed by another administrator? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Biophys has been edit warring recently at Russian apartment bombings as well, where he made 3 reverts in 24h on 13 September (and more later): . I was thinking of reporting him, but now he is already blocked for edit warring elsewhere, so I won't. This should be taken into account. Offliner (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Offliner, and that is why your just started reverting my recent edits in other articles without even talking: ? Biophys (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- What edit warring? Can sb provide the diffs were Biophys broke 3RR? Thanks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- One need not break the 3RR rule in order to be blocked for edit warring. LokiiT (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- But one needs to demonstrate edit warring. So far I see no diffs presented here, and I two reverts are not edit warring. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- One need not break the 3RR rule in order to be blocked for edit warring. LokiiT (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Piotrus, I did not broke the rule and made only two reverts in the article, and I talked a lot with two other users involved. I am afraid that administrator who blocked me was not quite objective. A week ago he did not block PasswordUsername even though he made a clear 3RR violation, but he blocked me in two minutes after receiving the report. However, it is now very fashionable to blame administrators of everything, so I decided to withdraw my request to review the block as to reduce any tensions. My request to review was standing for nine hours without response by any administrator. I can request to review my block again if you recommend.Biophys (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Piotrus, I am not sure if this will make any good, especially in light of EE sanctions.Biophys (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Piotrus, I did not broke the rule and made only two reverts in the article, and I talked a lot with two other users involved. I am afraid that administrator who blocked me was not quite objective. A week ago he did not block PasswordUsername even though he made a clear 3RR violation, but he blocked me in two minutes after receiving the report. However, it is now very fashionable to blame administrators of everything, so I decided to withdraw my request to review the block as to reduce any tensions. My request to review was standing for nine hours without response by any administrator. I can request to review my block again if you recommend.Biophys (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't see the unblock request, otherwise I'd have unblocked you. As I said above, I see no grounds to support edit warring. I suggest you file the unblock request again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- You'd better not because you're an involved person in regards to Biophys (not in the edit warring). Favoritism should be avoided.--Caspian blue 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't see the unblock request, otherwise I'd have unblocked you. As I said above, I see no grounds to support edit warring. I suggest you file the unblock request again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Involved how? That I've interacted in past does not mean my judgment is biased. But for the record, I'd indeed prefer if somebody else would take the action here. Blocking a user for 2 reverts is too much, I am sure a warning would suffice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- You've been trying to get Biophys of any sanction whenever his name comes up to AN3/AN/I or AE. In the latest rejected ArbCom case on EE, you were construed as an "involved admin" by other peer admins, then you're involved. Many people have been blocked for just "one revert" if they have a long history of tendentiously edit warring or editing in heated and controversial areas. I see no injustice from the block since his another AN3 report on his edit warring just happened not a long ago.--Caspian blue 01:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Involved how? That I've interacted in past does not mean my judgment is biased. But for the record, I'd indeed prefer if somebody else would take the action here. Blocking a user for 2 reverts is too much, I am sure a warning would suffice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- This block is unjustified, I left my comments here. --Martintg (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The only reason you think it's unjustified is because in the past I didn't block one of your "enemies" who, in your perception, edit warred just as much. But blocks are handled on a case-by-case basis, so perhaps rather than trying to re-dig-up your bitterness over an old conflict you should get back to improving the encyclopedia. rʨanaɢ /contribs 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I don't believe we have interacted before PU's report, and we have not interacted since until today, so what justification do you have in assuming bad faith in my motives, to the point that you personally attack me here on this talk page. The issue for me is not that you "didn't block one of your "enemies"" as you fallaciously attempt to claim, but the apparent punitive nature of your block against Biophys, given that the only diff in AN3 report was from June. --Martintg (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're skimming the report and not bothering to look at the article itself, apparently; you're failing to notice a revert on September 15. And, as for your obsession with PU...your message you left me just a few minutes ago is about 10% about Biophys, 90% about PasswordUsername. The fact that you haven't interacted with me in the interim doesn't mean you're not obviously still hung up on this old conflict. rʨanaɢ /contribs 01:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Obsession with PU"? My message to you on your talk page (to which you implausibly responded by accusing me of "following you around") was a reasonable question in regard to your oddly inconsistent blocking behavior. Are these bad faith accusations against me an attempt to divert attention from the issue of this apparent punitive block against Biophys?. --Martintg (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Like I have said many times, the reason things seem "inconsistent" to you is that blocks are handled on a case-by-case basis. When I encounter an AN3 report I respond in the way that is most beneficial for that particular circumstance at that particular time, not in the way that is going to make User:Martintg happy and be most consistent with the way I treated him and some other guy in the past. Again, if you want consistency, make a suggestion that admins be replaced by bots. rʨanaɢ /contribs 01:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Obsession with PU"? My message to you on your talk page (to which you implausibly responded by accusing me of "following you around") was a reasonable question in regard to your oddly inconsistent blocking behavior. Are these bad faith accusations against me an attempt to divert attention from the issue of this apparent punitive block against Biophys?. --Martintg (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're skimming the report and not bothering to look at the article itself, apparently; you're failing to notice a revert on September 15. And, as for your obsession with PU...your message you left me just a few minutes ago is about 10% about Biophys, 90% about PasswordUsername. The fact that you haven't interacted with me in the interim doesn't mean you're not obviously still hung up on this old conflict. rʨanaɢ /contribs 01:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I don't believe we have interacted before PU's report, and we have not interacted since until today, so what justification do you have in assuming bad faith in my motives, to the point that you personally attack me here on this talk page. The issue for me is not that you "didn't block one of your "enemies"" as you fallaciously attempt to claim, but the apparent punitive nature of your block against Biophys, given that the only diff in AN3 report was from June. --Martintg (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The only reason you think it's unjustified is because in the past I didn't block one of your "enemies" who, in your perception, edit warred just as much. But blocks are handled on a case-by-case basis, so perhaps rather than trying to re-dig-up your bitterness over an old conflict you should get back to improving the encyclopedia. rʨanaɢ /contribs 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, I wanted to be unblocked and thought the block was unfair. I thought an uninvolved admin will come and just tell me "yes" or "no". That would be fine. But it was not my intention to create a drama here. I am really thankful to everyone who commented, including the administrator. People, thank you very much for taking good care of me, one way or another!Biophys (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)