Radiopathy

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule and for harassing a fellow Wikipedian. In case you suspect sock puppetry, the correct path is to file a sock puppet investigation, and not to keep tagging an editor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   Wifione ^Message 18:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Yes, I was wrong in repeatedly tagging User: Rationalobserver as a sock; I realize now that an SPI should be carried out first. I did stop tagging after User: Dennis Brown (an admin) answered my question about a potential SPI case and referred me to the essay WP:SOCKHELP.

It was inappropriate for me to post an allusion to Ratinoalobserver under my block notice; I understand why this was taken as a personal attack by the blocking admin, even if it wasn't meant that way. It was just a way of blaming her (Ratioalobserver) for the block. Radiopathy •talk• 13:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on the block log history of this account, and your comments here, I don't trust an unblock right now. Your spin on your vulgar attack seems to be "Well, I guess I can see how someone might interpret that as an attack"; that clearly suggests you don't understand what you did. I don't know how calling someone that name can be taken as anything but an attack, and why you believe that you can say it without it being "meant that way." only (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

My two cents: The usual trope in fauxpologies is "I guess I can see how someone might interpret that as an attack", whereas this editor said "I understand why this was taken as a personal attack". I think Radiopathy's subsequent rationale for the comment might have been mistaken for the usual blunting of an actual apology.

My experience with this editor is limited to a few occasions occasioned by our seeming to edit the same sort of articles. I see a sea of positive contributions tainted by a bit of vitriolic foam washed up on the beach (horrifically nasty though it was). I think it would be a shame if the shameful behaviour incurred a sanction longer than necessary. Willondon (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Only:Actually, Willondon brings up a good point; to clarify:

No, the word "cunt" was not used as a personal attack against the blocking admin, but yes, it was used out of frustration to refer to User: Rationalobserver, and as such, was a personal attack. I was referring to a post from her talk page (which she deleted) in which she is told by an admin that her use of the word "cunt" at WP:WER was becoming disruptive. So, yes, "cunt" refers to Rationalobserver, and in the context of a block which was the result of her reporting me at 3RR, it was a personal attack, and I apologize for that. Radiopathy •talk• 00:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)