User talk:63.153.253.24

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

63.153.253.24 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I'm not sure what edits I made that were "disruptive." I may have been bold, but when pointed to relevant policy, I educated myself on it and followed it.
Your attempt to prematurely delete an rfded definition was reverted with the comment "Please wait for the RFD to be over." 13 hours later you did it again. Closing an RFD only 8 days after nomination is only done when there's pretty much unanimous aggreement to delete. Even then, there are procedures to follow in closing it before deletion. I'm not defending the definition, by the way- I was the one who nominated it in the first place. When the block expires in 5 days or so, please don't try to do that again, or you'll be blocked again- for a longer period. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

63.153.253.24 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

You're the blocking admin, and as such you are hardly qualified to answer an unblock request.

I did not attempt to close the RFD, only admins can do that. In addition, there was consensus to delete the usage. That's why I deleted it. As the RFD page states "Entries and senses should not normally be deleted in less than seven days after nomination." the implication is that after seven days it begins to become increasingly acceptable. I may have been bold and jumped the gun, but I was hardly disruptive.

I never accused you of any biased behavior, so I'm not even sure why you brought it up. (And while you may bring up you submitted it, you may notice we have exact opposite views on the reason for the deletion request. You believe they are redundant uses, I believe the use has little to nothing in common with the word.) I'm accusing you of a knee-jerk response to two edits in a 24 hour period. A week long ban is hardly proportionate, especially given that- in case you didn't notice in the two minutes it took you to go from revert to block, I showed no indications of persisting for the sole purpose of disruption. Being bold is far from being a common and unsavory way to disrupt a wiki-based site.
Note since I can't use your talk page: You are a fairly new admin, but I suggest you slow down a bit with the blocking. While I'm no expert on the politics here on Wiktionary, it seems to me like you focus extremely heavily on blocking single-edit accounts placing "test edits" or gibberish into pages. It doesn't exactly do well for the site "temperature."
I didn't intend for my comment to be interpreted as the official response to your request. You asked why you were blocked, so I, as the one who blocked you, answered your question. As for why I brought up the fact that I nominated the entry, it's been my experience with unblock requests that just about anything not nailed down is likely to be thrown into the discussion eventually, so I was anticipating a potential objection.
I would certainly appreciate it if other admins would weigh in with their opinions, and won't object to other admins reversing my action, if it was out of line. As for the length of the block, you may be right. I would have no objection to other admins changing that, either. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Good for you, because apparently instead of a denial, I'm just going to be ignored. Hooray politics. 63.153.253.24 01:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd block but for less than a week. Block is necessary as IP has been told his/her edits are acceptable but continues to make such edits. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I already had come to that conclusion myself, and unblocked them. To 63.153.253.24: you should not be intervening to shortcut a process you don't understand. Being reverted should have given you a hint that you needed to ask before doing the same thing again. You said that you educated yourself on the policy and followed it. I see you educating yourself, but just for the purpose of finding a way to wikilawyer your way around the specific wording of the revert message, not to learn the accepted practice. This isn't Wikipedia, where there are enough admins to implement detailed procedures and layers of review. Even there, I think your actions would have been viewed as hasty and inappropriate, and would eventually have led to your being blocked if you persisted. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikilawyering? Funny how that's an acceptable procedure when you're an established name, but assumptions of malpractice in the case of an IP are perfectly valid. Yes, I am here to push a political agenda, I've never hid that fact. 63.153.253.24 23:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)



This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.

RIR WHOIS lookup: America Europe Africa Asia-Pacific Latin America/Caribbean