Misplaced Pages

User talk:2.25.45.251: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:40, 29 July 2017 edit2.25.45.251 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:01, 16 July 2021 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)Tag: AWB 
(27 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== July 2017 == ==Block==
{{U|Berean Hunter}}, we typically allow blocked users some leeway ("venting"). It is not obvious at all that the initial block was justified, and I think ] would agree with that, and if the initial block (by ]) was wrong, so was the third one, in my opinion. I'll just add that the user has complained to ArbCom, in their usual acerbic manner which no doubt contributed to these blocks being placed, and though ArbCom is still (slowly) discussing the matter I think it is worthwhile discussing this. Thank you, ] (]) 12:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
] Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to ], without giving a valid reason for the removal in the ]. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been ]. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the ] for that. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> ] <font color="SeaGreen">]</font> 00:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
:''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself or ] so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice -->
::Clearly, you did not read or comprehend the text that I removed, or the explanation that I gave. ] (]) 00:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


{{ping|Drmies}} {{ping|Berean Hunter}} I feel that this editor's style of inter-personal editing does not help his case, but yes, I believe that the first block was inappropriate. And it follows that this throws doubt on the second and third, as both have occurred as a direct result of the first block, albeit with the aforementioned acerbic comments from the blocked editor contributing the situation. The admin who posted the initial block, who has a low editing frequency, has not responded to my comment on his talk page of over a week ago, . --]] 14:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
] Please stop your ]. If you continue to ] Misplaced Pages, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism3 --> ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
*Thank you ]. Berean, I really think we should allow this editor to get back in. Their, what shall we call it, rude behavior is in itself not enough for a civility block, and is in part explained by less than carefully explained reverts which sometimes go against editorial consensus and common sense. Thanks, ] (]) 15:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
:''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself or ] so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice -->
:Don't be stupid. My edit clearly could not under any circumstances be construed as vandalism. ] (]) 00:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC) **I'd support an unblock also. I suggest that the IP restore the unblock request, perhaps slightly toned down. ] ] 13:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


*], haven't heard back from {{U|Berean Hunter}} yet (or from ]). If you're OK with an unblock, go for it--I got domestic matters to attend to, including coffee. Perhaps one of my colleagues (], ], ]--HA! that's timely!, ]) has an interest in the matter too. ] (]) 13:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
{{anonblock|sig=] <sup>(])</sup> 00:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{unblock|reason=I have absurdly been accused of vandalism for making a necessary, indeed essential change to an article. If one knows anything about astronomy, one knows that the IAU assigns names to objects, and no-one else. The 'catalogue of named galaxies' has no relevance to any Misplaced Pages article. And if one knows anything about Misplaced Pages policy, one knows that my edit could not under any circumstances be described as vandalism, and the overenthusiastic administrator who blocked me four minutes after I made the edit should not have done so. They are now vandalistically undoing '''all''' of my contributions for no reason - this is absolutely outrageous. ] (]) 00:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)}}
** I will now restore talk page access. If you still wish to be unblocked post a further request and I, or another interested admin, will attend to it.--]] 21:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
This "administrator" has made less than 200 edits this decade. 30 of them are today, attacking me. Seems to me their account has probably been hacked. ] (]) 00:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
:Obviously, I wish to be unblocked. I was blocked without justification, blocked more for complaining about being blocked without justification, and blocked yet more for simply making good edits. What's the point of not simply unblocking but instead making me jump through another hoop? ] (]) 22:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
:It would perhaps be better if you politely ask {{u|Winhunter}} why they view your edits as vandalism and then discuss.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 15:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
::Sweet Jesus. OK. You're on what us assholes call a "civility restriction", which doesn't just mean "no cussing"--it also means no jerking people around, condescending them, or really acting in a way that is not accepted even in semi-polite society. I tell you what, as a completely uninvolved administrator I will impose a 1R restriction for the next three months, starting NOW. That means you may not revert when another editor has reverted you: as far as I can tell that's when you start yelling at them (which is, if I had to guess, why you were ''really'' blocked--but that's just a hunch). You may, of course, protest, in civil terms, on the article talk page. Hell, you can ping me if you like and I will be happy to look into it; it's not like I got anything better to do. If you disagree with this, you are more than welcome to file a case at ]. Happy editing, ] (]) 01:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
::And how am I supposed to do that when blocked? If you're not going to review the block properly, what is the use of the unblock template? ] (]) 15:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
:::I do not think I have jerked anyone around or condescended them. In fact, that is what happened to me. Getting blocked for making good edits was a bit of a jerkaround, was it not? Being told to "politely" ask the blocking admin why they blocked me was extremely condescending, was it not? And being clearly impossible for me to do, also a jerkaround. Having to appeal all the way to the arbitration committee to get an obviously wrong block lifted was a massive and unnecessary jerkaround. You seem to want to guess why I was ''really'' blocked. I was ''really'' blocked because an administrator was either careless or malicious and violated the blocking policy. Not for any other reason. I do not think your arbitrary restrictions are in any way reasonable. ] (]) 20:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
:::He was notified when I pinged him in my statement above. I have done a review and we are awaiting his response.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 16:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

:::: I've been blocked for no good reason, I'm very annoyed about that, and it is obvious that the block was not correct or necessary. Don't tell me to have patience. Given that the user has edited less than 200 times in the last decade, waiting for their response is not an acceptable option. ] (]) 16:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
::::The whole behaviour and gameplay of this editor is the likely cause of the grief. (especially highlighted by immediately responses above.) The first and second blocks were really justified by saying things like "Don't be stupid." and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." (then delete it to avoid scrutiny!). Editors here are all volunteers and should not be subjected to such behaviour, and it avoids the trumping policy of all - ] - ''good faith''.
:::: And why were you telling me to ask the user things when plainly that is impossible and you'd apparently done the asking anyway? ] (]) 16:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
::::NOTE: I do suspect this unregistered User might be just another sockpuppet of the now indefinitely blocked ] , who also deletes Talkpage information they don't like or even blocks, also edits astronomical pages, and equally shows similar poor and rude behaviour. Are you ]? ] (]) 00:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::: See also ] in case you are not familiar with it, ] for discussion of the things I was editing, and the fact that most of my edits were subsequently restored by someone else. And yet you somehow think that blocking me for vandalism was not an obvious error? ] (]) 16:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

:::::Hmmm. You might have been correct and I was entirely prepared to undertake that position but I really need to follow protocols per ]. I don't see a consensus anywhere that the block was wrong and I don't edit these articles so in my eyes I see a content dispute where it is possible that you might be right. Had I thought otherwise, I would have declined your unblock request. I was going to advocate your position from an administrative perspective but since you didn't take my suggestion to have patience and are apparently unhappy with my approach, I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case. .<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 17:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|reason=Oh, come on. Blocked with a false claim of vandalism, blocked for complaining about that, blocked for editing again after being blocked, and now blocked again not even two days after being unblocked, because someone's decided I'm someone? Just when I thought we were getting somewhere. Every edit I made was intended to improve an article. Every edit I've made did improve an article. So why, ''yet again'', have I been blocked? ] (]) 20:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)|decline=, as ] states : "{{xt|An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances ..... The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.}}" Cheerio. ] ] ] 23:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC) }}
::::::This block was utterly dishonest and in violation of the blocking policy. Content dispute? There is obviously no content dispute! There's just an '''obviously''' false claim of vandalism and a block that '''obviously''' violates the blocking policy. Do you feel that you've done a good job by taunting me as you have instead of dealing with the policy violation? ] (]) 18:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::Very amusing how you link to the protocols you say you must follow, but ignore the clear mandate they give you to unblock this insulting and clearly unjustifiable block. ] (]) 18:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, what a joke. Working hard to improve articles just gets you insults and jerkoffs playing games. Fine, goodbye. ] (]) 19:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:01, 16 July 2021

Block

Berean Hunter, we typically allow blocked users some leeway ("venting"). It is not obvious at all that the initial block was justified, and I think User:Anthony Bradbury would agree with that, and if the initial block (by User:Winhunter) was wrong, so was the third one, in my opinion. I'll just add that the user has complained to ArbCom, in their usual acerbic manner which no doubt contributed to these blocks being placed, and though ArbCom is still (slowly) discussing the matter I think it is worthwhile discussing this. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: @Berean Hunter: I feel that this editor's style of inter-personal editing does not help his case, but yes, I believe that the first block was inappropriate. And it follows that this throws doubt on the second and third, as both have occurred as a direct result of the first block, albeit with the aforementioned acerbic comments from the blocked editor contributing the situation. The admin who posted the initial block, who has a low editing frequency, has not responded to my comment on his talk page of over a week ago, . --Anthony Bradbury 14:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you Anthony. Berean, I really think we should allow this editor to get back in. Their, what shall we call it, rude behavior is in itself not enough for a civility block, and is in part explained by less than carefully explained reverts which sometimes go against editorial consensus and common sense. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, I wish to be unblocked. I was blocked without justification, blocked more for complaining about being blocked without justification, and blocked yet more for simply making good edits. What's the point of not simply unblocking but instead making me jump through another hoop? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Sweet Jesus. OK. You're on what us assholes call a "civility restriction", which doesn't just mean "no cussing"--it also means no jerking people around, condescending them, or really acting in a way that is not accepted even in semi-polite society. I tell you what, as a completely uninvolved administrator I will impose a 1R restriction for the next three months, starting NOW. That means you may not revert when another editor has reverted you: as far as I can tell that's when you start yelling at them (which is, if I had to guess, why you were really blocked--but that's just a hunch). You may, of course, protest, in civil terms, on the article talk page. Hell, you can ping me if you like and I will be happy to look into it; it's not like I got anything better to do. If you disagree with this, you are more than welcome to file a case at WP:AN. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not think I have jerked anyone around or condescended them. In fact, that is what happened to me. Getting blocked for making good edits was a bit of a jerkaround, was it not? Being told to "politely" ask the blocking admin why they blocked me was extremely condescending, was it not? And being clearly impossible for me to do, also a jerkaround. Having to appeal all the way to the arbitration committee to get an obviously wrong block lifted was a massive and unnecessary jerkaround. You seem to want to guess why I was really blocked. I was really blocked because an administrator was either careless or malicious and violated the blocking policy. Not for any other reason. I do not think your arbitrary restrictions are in any way reasonable. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The whole behaviour and gameplay of this editor is the likely cause of the grief. (especially highlighted by immediately responses above.) The first and second blocks were really justified by saying things like "Don't be stupid." and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." (then delete it to avoid scrutiny!). Editors here are all volunteers and should not be subjected to such behaviour, and it avoids the trumping policy of all - WP:GF - good faith.
NOTE: I do suspect this unregistered User might be just another sockpuppet of the now indefinitely blocked Tetra quark , who also deletes Talkpage information they don't like or even blocks, also edits astronomical pages, and equally shows similar poor and rude behaviour. Are you Tetra quark? Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

Oh, come on. Blocked with a false claim of vandalism, blocked for complaining about that, blocked for editing again after being blocked, and now blocked again not even two days after being unblocked, because someone's decided I'm someone? Just when I thought we were getting somewhere. Every edit I made was intended to improve an article. Every edit I've made did improve an article. So why, yet again, have I been blocked? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are community banned, as Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Site ban states : "An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances ..... The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." Cheerio. Ritchie333 23:13, 10 August 2017 (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.