User talk:69.252.158.32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This block is a result of your Death threat on Antaeus Freldspar's talk page. --Samuel Wantman 02:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have blocked this IP for three months because it is editing the same pages again. Xiner (talk, email) 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

69.252.158.32 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

This block is unsubstantiated. To begin with, the original block was for inappropriate comments, NOT a death threat. A death threat is threatining to kill someone, not arguing that someone is a disease of humanity and should be executed by the public. Further more the original block was for 3 months and the time ran out. If the block was supposed to have been for longer than that it would have been...

Decline reason:

Wikilawyering will not get you out of this block. The three-month block actually just started March 15, so you've still got a ways to go on it. — Veinor (talk to me) 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

YesY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Upon reviewing this again, I see that nobody ever told this user to not edit Monty Hall problem again. However, the death threat, or whatever you want to call it, is a serious no personal attacks violation. Anything like that again will result in a block without warning.

Request handled by: Veinor (talk to me) 04:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok thank you for looking at the situation carefully. I understand that it was against the rules one way or the other, and will do my best to understand where the lines are drawn for these rules.