Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 1,131:

:While the concerns are valid, ANI is not the forum for addressing long term, suboptimal behavior. [[WP:RFC/U]] is the appropriate venue for that. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 00:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

===Unblock of Snakebyte42===

{{archivetop|reason='''Withdrawing request.''' Unblock request being answered by an admin with reasoning given and too early to call a consensus. [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 02:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)}}

[[User:Dreadstar|The administrator Dreadstar]] has indefinitely blocked editor Snakebyte42 for vague 'BLP violations' and for the basis of policy of WP:DISRUPT. However, when I attempted to hold Dreadstar accountable for this block, inquiring about these specific BLP violations and the indefinite block of a long term editor who had only begun editing this topic area, I was told 'The admin responding to the unblock message will determine all of that. ' as if the admin reviewing the request knows any reasoning about Dreadstar's block beyond the block reason, the post that caused it, or anything of the sort. The exchange between me and Dreadstar at Dreadstar's talk page is particularly relevant; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreadstar The one sided exchange between Snakebyte42's reasoning (on his talk page) on why he shouldn't have been blocked and Dreadstar's response ended with a response from Dreadstar saying 'WP:BLP applies to any and all Wikipedia pages, including article and user talk pages. Dreadstar ☥ 22:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)' It's also particularly disheartening to see [[User_talk:Snakebyte42|Snakebyte42's talk page,]] where he elaborates he's been on the site for so long, and he can't even know what conduct he did that got him blocked. I've not been able to get a clear clarification of what exactly this user did to get blocked, and how it was so particularly rule breaking or incorrigible that the editor had to be '''blocked indefinitely''' for first offense and without warning. As such, for lack of evidence regarding disruption of this user, Snakebyte42 is to be unblocked. [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 00:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

*'''Support''' As proposer. [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 00:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Line 1,145 ⟶ 1,146:

*'''Oppose/Keep blocked'''. Tutelary says, "...I've not been able to get a clear clarification of what exactly this user did to get blocked"; do which I say, look directly above, where it's laid out. If you can't understand that, then you don't belong anywhere near these articles, nor should you be secretly communicating with the editor -- if you have something to say, say it where everyone can see it. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 01:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

*'''Support indefinite topic ban''' from all Gamergate-related pages and discussions for {{user|Snakebyte42}} and {{user|Tutelary}}. The former could probably then be unblocked (see current unblock request), while the latter once again shows that their participation is not helpful for the encyclopedia. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 02:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}

==24.201.216.214==