User talk:Rationalobserver

Block Notice

I'm not interested in an unblock request. This is the last thing I needed to show me that this place is terribly dysfunctional and not really worth the effort. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, unless anyone takes a disliking to you then you are treated as a criminal. Good luck and goodbye! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I changed my mind, since a couple of others weighed-in at the SPI, including Sergecross73, Lightbreather, and Chillum, and they think that a mistake has been made. I am not socking and I've never been blocked before, so I don't know what else to say except that I think another pair of eyes should double-check Mike V's decision. Also, if his thinking is that I am only here to bother Dan56, I would happily agree to an interaction ban between us. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I changed my mind, since a couple of others weighed-in at the SPI, including [[User:Sergecross73|Sergecross73]], [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]], and [[User:Chillum |Chillum]], and they think that a mistake has been made. I am not socking and I've never been blocked before, so I don't know what else to say except that I think another pair of eyes should double-check Mike V's decision. Also, if his thinking is that I am only here to bother Dan56, I would happily agree to an interaction ban between us. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver#top|talk]]) 16:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I changed my mind, since a couple of others weighed-in at the SPI, including [[User:Sergecross73|Sergecross73]], [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]], and [[User:Chillum |Chillum]], and they think that a mistake has been made. I am not socking and I've never been blocked before, so I don't know what else to say except that I think another pair of eyes should double-check Mike V's decision. Also, if his thinking is that I am only here to bother Dan56, I would happily agree to an interaction ban between us. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver#top|talk]]) 16:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I changed my mind, since a couple of others weighed-in at the SPI, including [[User:Sergecross73|Sergecross73]], [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]], and [[User:Chillum |Chillum]], and they think that a mistake has been made. I am not socking and I've never been blocked before, so I don't know what else to say except that I think another pair of eyes should double-check Mike V's decision. Also, if his thinking is that I am only here to bother Dan56, I would happily agree to an interaction ban between us. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver#top|talk]]) 16:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I've been involved in these discussions, so I shouldn't be making any administrative decisions personally, but for what its worth, I believe its worth a second look. I thought the evidence was rather weak, as did several other editors, such as Lightbreather and Chillum. If SPI worked off of consensus, the block would not have happened. That's my 2 cents. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

While I remain of the opinion that the evidence was not conclusive and this is not a block I would have done myself, I also concede that User:Mike V is far more experienced in sock puppetry cases than myself. Chillum 18:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, I asked Lightbreather below if this block can be reviewed at AN/I, or if this unblock request is my only recourse. What advice can you give me? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V:- looking at [1] and [2] they're in the same time zone, but their proportions of article edits, and edit summary usage are very different. Are you entirely confident about this? PhilKnight (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I thought you were very level-headed and rational. I liked what you were trying to accomplish re Wikipedia's civility problem, and I'll miss you.

Lightbreather (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Lightbreather; it's much appreciated! Is an unblock request my only recourse here, or can I request that this block be reviewed at AN/I? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)