User talk:A1Z2

December 2011[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Yeshivah College, Australia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WP:NOTCENSOR ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Yeshivah College, Australia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Yeshivah College, Australia, you may be blocked from editing. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:A172_reported_by_User:Danjel_.28Result:_.29[edit]

You have reverted more than 3 times on the same article, despite warnings, so your actions are now being discussed at the link given above. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at WP:AN3. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Syrthiss (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, you removed the report on you here. While your other edits may have been in good faith, this was clearly disruptive. Please stop your disruptive editing and begin communicating with other editors on the encyclopedia. Syrthiss (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31 hours is awfully damn light for someone who had... err.. 9RR. I'd ask for the block to be extended to indef (this is clearly an SPA, look at the edit history), not removed. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon that can be resolved in discussion at AN3. If Syrthiss doesn't mind my talking for him/her this block is just to prevent short term silliness on A1Z2's part. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no harm in leaving this short block in place for now. If the user does not continue to edit disruptively after the block expires, then no harm will have been done by leaving it at 31 hours, whereas if they do then we can block again. If the same pattern of editing recurs then I think an indefinite block would be fully justifiable, but there's no harm in giving the editor a chance to think again and edit constructively. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't really the 3RR block, btw. If I had blocked for the 3RR, I would have closed the report and commented there. It was more a 'don't blank reports on official noticeboards, especially reports about you...and while you're at it stop blanking things elsewhere' block. I expected that someone would action on the 3RR report (which in general, blanking this section and not commenting on it even in edit summaries could be taken as good faith if you were charitable but otherwise could be taken for pure vandalism) and either rule 24h and let my 31h stand, or indef and overwrite my block. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

A1Z2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

114.198.69.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

[[WP:Disruptive editing|Disruptive editing]]

Blocking administrator: Syrthiss (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: (1) You have given no reason for unblocking. (2) This is the wrong place to request a lift of a block on an IP address. (3) Your editing has been disruptive, consisting entirely of an attempt to censor Wikipedia by suppressing information you clearly do not want publicised, and in addition attempting to remove a report on you at an administrators' noticeboard. Any one of those three reasons would have been sufficient reason on its own to decline this request. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]