In this edit, and at least one that followed, you called contributions by User:L.S. WikiCleaner "vandalism". Can you please read or re-read WP:VAND and either explain how those edits were vandalistic or apologize? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- They keep changing the tone without consensus. Isn't that vandalism?
Michalis1994 (
talk)
17:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- No. Any good-faith effort to improve the page is not vandalism.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
18:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks - I did not know the difference as I am quite new here, but I can certainly familiriase myself with those rules. Should I post an apology in the talk page or somehow remove the edit description?
Michalis1994 (
talk)
18:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- You can't change the edit summary, which is why we advise they stay as neutral and civil as possible. A user talk page comment would be good. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks - I did not know the difference as I am quite new here, but I can certainly familiriase myself with those rules. Should I post an apology in the talk page or somehow remove the edit description?
Michalis1994 (
talk)
18:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- No. Any good-faith effort to improve the page is not vandalism.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
18:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Bbb23 (
talk)
16:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Michalis1994 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I strongly believe this decision is unnecessary and overly harsh. According to the 3RR policy, it is explicitly stated that in instances of clear vandalism by banned users, I am permitted to revert the article to its original state. After observing that an IP address, unequivocally linked to the blocked user L.S. WikiCleaner, continued editing post-ban (within minutes after the block was implemented!), I made the decision to restore the article's original content and ask users to contribute to the talk page. I am perplexed as to why I have been blocked, as I acted within the exemptions outlined in the 3RR policy. Exemption No.3: Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users. I even brought this to the attention of Bbb23, who ignored my plea and instead warned me for something totally unrelated. This situation strikes me as unjust and I believe the block should be lifted. Update: the article has now been protected by Firefangledfeathers. Michalis1994 ( talk) 16:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I think CoffeeCrumbs' assessment of this situation is correct. 331dot ( talk) 08:10, 10 July 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.
- Leaving this unblock review for another admin, but given the continued unwarranted claims of vandalism—after an initial warning—I'm delivering the below final warning as an AE sanction. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Michalis1994, the problem here is that what you did is not obviously one of the exceptions. You've already been told that the edits themselves are not obvious vandalism, so that's not an exception from edit-warring. And while I very strongly suspect that the edit after the previous editor was blocked was made by a sockpuppet of the blocked editor, strong suspicion is a pretty weak hook to hang your coat on when the underlying edit was not obvious vandalism, and you were already clearly edit-warring before. You can't just mush together two partial exceptions together -- an edit that could be bad but wasn't obvious vandalism and a possible sockpuppet -- to get one clear one. It would have been far better to leave the article alone if there was no obvious vandalism, take your concerns to SPI, and let them sort it out before any further actions. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 20:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- this ip restore Michalis edition
- and this ip restore WikiCleaner edition. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 00:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
final warning to be civil and avoid personal attacks
You have been sanctioned for continued personal attacks after a warning.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Michalis1994, you are not permitted to remove a declined unblock request.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
In this edit, and at least one that followed, you called contributions by User:L.S. WikiCleaner "vandalism". Can you please read or re-read WP:VAND and either explain how those edits were vandalistic or apologize? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- They keep changing the tone without consensus. Isn't that vandalism?
Michalis1994 (
talk)
17:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- No. Any good-faith effort to improve the page is not vandalism.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
18:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks - I did not know the difference as I am quite new here, but I can certainly familiriase myself with those rules. Should I post an apology in the talk page or somehow remove the edit description?
Michalis1994 (
talk)
18:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- You can't change the edit summary, which is why we advise they stay as neutral and civil as possible. A user talk page comment would be good. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks - I did not know the difference as I am quite new here, but I can certainly familiriase myself with those rules. Should I post an apology in the talk page or somehow remove the edit description?
Michalis1994 (
talk)
18:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- No. Any good-faith effort to improve the page is not vandalism.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
18:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Bbb23 (
talk)
16:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Michalis1994 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I strongly believe this decision is unnecessary and overly harsh. According to the 3RR policy, it is explicitly stated that in instances of clear vandalism by banned users, I am permitted to revert the article to its original state. After observing that an IP address, unequivocally linked to the blocked user L.S. WikiCleaner, continued editing post-ban (within minutes after the block was implemented!), I made the decision to restore the article's original content and ask users to contribute to the talk page. I am perplexed as to why I have been blocked, as I acted within the exemptions outlined in the 3RR policy. Exemption No.3: Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users. I even brought this to the attention of Bbb23, who ignored my plea and instead warned me for something totally unrelated. This situation strikes me as unjust and I believe the block should be lifted. Update: the article has now been protected by Firefangledfeathers. Michalis1994 ( talk) 16:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I think CoffeeCrumbs' assessment of this situation is correct. 331dot ( talk) 08:10, 10 July 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.
- Leaving this unblock review for another admin, but given the continued unwarranted claims of vandalism—after an initial warning—I'm delivering the below final warning as an AE sanction. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Michalis1994, the problem here is that what you did is not obviously one of the exceptions. You've already been told that the edits themselves are not obvious vandalism, so that's not an exception from edit-warring. And while I very strongly suspect that the edit after the previous editor was blocked was made by a sockpuppet of the blocked editor, strong suspicion is a pretty weak hook to hang your coat on when the underlying edit was not obvious vandalism, and you were already clearly edit-warring before. You can't just mush together two partial exceptions together -- an edit that could be bad but wasn't obvious vandalism and a possible sockpuppet -- to get one clear one. It would have been far better to leave the article alone if there was no obvious vandalism, take your concerns to SPI, and let them sort it out before any further actions. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 20:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- this ip restore Michalis edition
- and this ip restore WikiCleaner edition. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 00:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
final warning to be civil and avoid personal attacks
You have been sanctioned for continued personal attacks after a warning.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Michalis1994, you are not permitted to remove a declined unblock request.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)