If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Drmies (
talk) 02:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, time to end this drama and victim playing. The editor has serious competency issues. In addition there are privacy issues, as
Dennis Brown can attest to. Finally, I could have made this a CU block as well, since the editor saw fit to create an account to harass another administrator, with whom they were in conflict, with a series of edits so vile that none of them made it through the filter. Dennis has seen the file as well and, I assume, is keeping a copy. I am not yet revoking TPA; Dennis, or anyone else, feel free to do that if you see fit, if this drama continues.
Drmies (
talk) 02:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I have revolked TPA for their own good, multiple disclosing of personal information that required revdel. This squarely fits under
WP:CIR, and is supported by CU information not disclosed. Any admin reviewing should note that the editor is also under a community imposed BLP topic ban.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 02:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Drmies,
Dennis Brown and the others: I'm sorry for my incorrect assumption that a topic ban from BLPs would be sufficient to deal with the situation. While I didn't technically perform the unblock, my suggestion to do so was painfully naive in hindsight.
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 05:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
~ ToBeFree, no worries--we know now what we did not know then.
Drmies (
talk) 14:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Email disabled after abuse.
Drmies (
talk) 14:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think you need to apologize for being optimistic and believing in the best in a person. It's a characteristic I wish I could be "guilty" of more often than I am.
CoffeeCrumbs (
talk) 07:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply