User talk:81.178.208.69

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:SmackallBot/anon SmackallBot 15:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

{{unblock|I've been blocked by an administrator apparently just because he disagreed with me and presumably wants to stop me expressing my opinion. Please review my contributions and see if you can find, in the four edits I've made, anything that looks remotely like the 'vandalism' I've been accused of. I am appalled at the dishonesty of this administrator and his misuse of the tools available to him. [[User:81.178.208.69|81.178.208.69]] 11:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)}}

Anyone reviewing blocks? It's been many hours now. Please, either undo this completely ridiculous block, or tell me which of my four edits were the vandalism I've been accused of. 81.178.208.69 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't studied the merits of the block, which I guess has now expired, but I'm distressed if the full 24 hours went by without another administrator reviewing the block. Is that what happened? If there is, I'll post to the noticeboard asking if there is some problem with the unblock procedure, as the backlog at requests for unblock isn't particularly long. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the full 24 hours passed. I looked at the category containing unblock requests, some came and some went but it seemed that mine and one or two others were passed over. Would appreciate it if you did have a look at my contributions and particularly the talk page where I was in dispute with the admin who blocked me. I believe admins are not supposed to block users they are having a dispute with. 81.178.208.69 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit waring in the middle of a discussion is bad-form. Status qou should be maintained until a consensus is reached. Especially when consensus for the opposite already existed. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No consensus existed. Someone else had previously removed the paranormal tag, and it had been restored. If you look at the talk page you can see that it's only InShaneee who wanted the tag on there. So you think it's OK that I was blocked for 'vandalism' then, just because I disagreed with an admin? You think it's OK for an admin to block someone so he can get the upper hand in a dispute? 81.178.208.69 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

for the record, no it's not ok ... if that's what happened. what article did you get blocked over. and to JS, edit warring is bad, but "status quo" has no special status either. Derex 17:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha, article? Wish it had been something so significant...See Talk:Red rain in Kerala, and history thereof. 81.178.208.69 17:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]