Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

My stress level

January 2018[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN talk to me 23:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

I have not been disruptively editing, also I believe this block to be inappropriate as I haven't even been given any warnings -- 🐇 ChocolateRabbit 23:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is clearly disruption and a breadth of unaddressed concerns regarding your use of this account. I'm declining this request as it's nowhere near WP:GAB-compliant. As an aside, I strongly suggest you begin to listen to what NeilN and TonyBallioni are attempting to explain to you below as opposed to playing the "unfair block" card. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Instead of responding to my two requests for an explanation, you make the same report? --NeilN talk to me 23:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you've been warned about making frivolous reports before. --NeilN talk to me 23:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, would you be open to unblocking this user if they agree to 0RR on football related topics? Their constant reversion of others and ownership of football topics seems to be the root cause. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: Perhaps, but I need an answer about the warnings and reports for Ethan111. --NeilN talk to me 23:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I reported Ethan111 because of vandalism and disruptive editing. I said that at the AIV page. -- 🐇 ChocolateRabbit 23:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this is vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 23:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: He added unsourced content. -- 🐇 ChocolateRabbit 23:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I'm tempted to make this block an indefinite one for competency issues. The material is clearly mentioned in the body. --NeilN talk to me 23:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: I thought your initial block was lenient, to be honest, give the level of disruption this user has been causing in football articles, and their frequent edit warring behavior and use of admin boards to try to further content disputes. I almost blocked for 72 hours earlier today, but the edit war had died down then, so I gave a BLP DS in case they continued their disputes on footballers. I'd personally prefer a restriction short of an indefinite block, but I also think you could make a case for it given the disruption and competency issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can you block me anyway, when I haven't recieved any prior warnings? You surely cannot do that without giving sufficient warnings -- 🐇 ChocolateRabbit 23:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've had rollback removed, you've been warned at WP:ANEW, and then there's this. You've had plenty of warnings. Now you should focus on convincing us why this block should not be an indefinite one. --NeilN talk to me 23:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: How about this. I only make 1 revert on individual articles to avoid potential edit wars. -- 🐇 ChocolateRabbit 23:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about you falsely accusing other editors of vandalism and then reporting them. --NeilN talk to me 23:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I reported what I believed to be vandalism, everyone makes mistakes -- 🐇 ChocolateRabbit 23:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you were given a chance to explain the mistake (twice). You ignored both opportunities and re-reported again. --NeilN talk to me 23:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I share NeilN's concerns, and I think this would continue even with one revert. This isn't just one mistake, this is a pattern. This is why I suggested 0RR above, and I was prepared to impose it under the BLP arbitration case if you continued your edit warring behavior on footballers. I cannot speak for Neil, but at this point, I would be looking for 0RR and an acknowledgement that any further use of admin boards to further content disputes will result in an indefinite block. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot impose a threat like that it would be using the block as a punishment. -- 🐇 ChocolateRabbit 23:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:, I agree an indefinite block is likely needed here. I don't see any sign they understand what the issues are, and I think it would continue once the 31 hours are up. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, I agree with TonyBallioni. It would protect other editors from your disruptive accusations. And I've made your block an indefinite one. --NeilN talk to me 00:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion --NeilN talk to me 15:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChocolateRabbit

Leave a Reply