User talk:2601:646:201:57F0:246:89EB:87C0:F4D4

Blocked

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).

2601:646:201:57F0:246:89EB:87C0:F4D4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

blocked for opinion on talk page? admin arrogance.

Decline reason:

Virtually every single one of your edits have been reverted. Nothing here indicates this would change if you were unblocked. Yamla (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2024 (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.

@Graham87: can you explain this block? The only relevant discussion that I can see is at User talk:2601:646:201:57F0:E375:79A4:4F64:36FB, which arguably falls short of WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Is there another discussion somewhere that I'm missing? – bradv 06:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bradv: That was the only discussion. There highly eccentric formatting on articles and talk pages was a major issue; their response at the above link showed such an extreme attitude problem that I felt a block was appropriate. Graham87 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"Highly eccentric"? It was a bare link, which is not at all unusual. But instead of having someone come along and improve their formatting, they were reverted, twice, and then had their messages on the talk page talk page section deleted. Then they were blocked for a year with no explanation. I am reversing your block, as this is a completely inappropriate way to treat newcomers, and contravenes the blocking policy. – bradv 16:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bradv: OK. In my time editing Wikipedia I have never ever encountered an editor who, when legitimately wanting to add a message to a talk page, just posted a bare link and nothing else ... many many times. I honestly don't think this is a newcomer; I think this is someone yanking our chains, as demonstrated by the talk page message you linked above along with the proloficity and consistency of their ... rather unusual ... editing practices. Graham87 (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

---