User talk:Bladesmulti

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by .

Ayurveda

Please self revert your latest sanction breaking edits, else I will report you for breaking them. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: can you provide specific diffs although I think I understand which one. But those edits specifically violate the last concluded RfC and adds "pseudoscience" without any article talk page discussion. I may be wrong. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I have reverted this POV vandalism. Let's stick to what RS say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see BullRangifer's change has been reverted already. None of my contributions were breaking the sanctions, unless Alexbrn had described his changes under 4 hours and had any agreement. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I shall be reporting you. I hope you get at the very least a six month ban for deliberate sanction breaking. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported you for breaking sanctions. By the way, the last time I asked you to self-revert, you refused, and got a 36 hour block !!! Think about it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. I had asked if other user had explained his contributions in 4 hours or had any agreement for them. If answer is no, then again we are wasting time. Those changes were already decided through the RFC that you had observed more than I. Even on AN, no one voted for overturn. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Undiscussed reversion at Ayurveda, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

--John (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John, I have mailed you. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have carefully judged the reason, for which John had blocked. I realise the main reason and I assure to John that I wouldn't create these circumstances again. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Blocks are to prevent disruption and I judge that unblocking will not result in disruption. John (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]