| Revision as of 03:12, 8 May 2009 editScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,021 edits →Block explanation please← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:18, 8 May 2009 edit undoWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 editsm →Block explanation please: fix indentNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
| You reverted the same text three times, triggering a large revert war on the article. Edit-warring is a bad thing for the project, and you should know better than to engage in it. I don't care whether you reverted three or four times, the principle remains the same. — ] • ] 03:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | You reverted the same text three times, triggering a large revert war on the article. Edit-warring is a bad thing for the project, and you should know better than to engage in it. I don't care whether you reverted three or four times, the principle remains the same. — ] • ] 03:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I have just realized that ] has also been blocked for the same thing. I think that was ''also'' a bad block. We were in the middle of an ] on the talk page. I do not understand the logic of your heavy-handed approach. The lack of a warning, or even a courtesy notice after the block, is quite unreasonable to my mind. -- ] (]) 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | :I have just realized that ] has also been blocked for the same thing. I think that was ''also'' a bad block. We were in the middle of an ] on the talk page. I do not understand the logic of your heavy-handed approach. The lack of a warning, or even a courtesy notice after the block, is quite unreasonable to my mind. -- ] (]) 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Scjessey, Wizardman, is one of the arbitrators so I think you should pay some serious attention there. Personally, I think that the administrator Werdna was within the bounds of blocking policy. Whether you ''should'' have been blocked is perhaps a different question, but setting the content and consensus question aside for the minute you were at 3RR in 2 days, versus ChildofMidnight being at 4RR in the same period. Unblock requests that look like protests against perceived unfairness don't really work - you might take that as a sign to take things easy. ] (]) 03:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:18, 8 May 2009
|
Please sign your comments using four tildes ( |
Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil. |
Blocked for 3RR
September 2008
|
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Request handled by: seicer | talk | contribs 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC) |
- I have left a note directly with the blocking editor suggesting that the block is a mistake and that the editing in question was routine, uncontroversial article patrol. The 3RR report itself is an over-the-top act of wikigaming by a problem editor. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also, Scjessey, as peculiar as this is, to eliminate any possible argument for the ongoing block will you kindly signal that you will not do more than 3 reverts per day on the main page, even unrelated uncontroversial ones, until and unless we clarify per the terms of article probation that this is okay? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've been away from Misplaced Pages for a few hours, and this block has come as a complete surprise to me. I agree that this is a highly dubious piece of wikigaming, and this is clearly confirmed by the reporting editor's attempt to ensure the block remains - an agenda-based 3RR report, basically. Oh well. No real harm done. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Re unblocked
I'm glad you got unblocked. I'm sorry you experienced problems with an autoblock. I hope that my comments, with perhaps an overly-strict interpretation of 3RR enforcement, didn't have too much adverse effect on your ability to edit freely. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
May 2009
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice stuff
|
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | |
| Thanks, Mom! Quartermaster (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC) |
Soxwon (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
 |
ALLST☆Recho's Placenta Award Because life begins, and ends, with WikiPedia. Thanks for living. =) - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Award again
Explanation: the award was for Misplaced Pages and bias. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
Hey. Because of your edit warring at the Presidency of Barack Obama article, you've been blocked (not by me). Edit-warring on an article group on probation that's in an arbcom case you're a party to.. well, that wasn't the best move, and it is something I'm going to look at while writing up the proposed decision. Wizardman 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot see how that could possibly be described as edit warring, and the two edits I made occurred several hours ago. I received no complaint, and no warning. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Block explanation please
(this note after edit conflict with previous section)
I have been accused of edit warring at Presidency of Barack Obama, and blocked for 24 hours. I have received no warning and no explanation. My last 4 edits to that article are as follows:
- 21:05, 29 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 128.240.229.68 identified as vandalism to last revision by QueenofBattle. using TW")
- 22:08, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288296766 by Grundle2600 (talk) - this isn't Wikiquote, it's Misplaced Pages.")
- 22:29, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288358928 by ChildofMidnight (talk) - rv quote again. "Consensus before contentious", CoM")
- 23:19, 7 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288570875 by ChildofMidnight (talk) - rv per talk page consensus that you must've missed")
I am completely at a loss as to why this block has occurred. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I actually pointed this out here and got this response. Soxwon (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see. Well I think this is a bad block (although I would say that, I suppose). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You reverted the same text three times, triggering a large revert war on the article. Edit-warring is a bad thing for the project, and you should know better than to engage in it. I don't care whether you reverted three or four times, the principle remains the same. — Werdna • talk 03:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have just realized that User:ChildofMidnight has also been blocked for the same thing. I think that was also a bad block. We were in the middle of an active discussion about this on the talk page. I do not understand the logic of your heavy-handed approach. The lack of a warning, or even a courtesy notice after the block, is quite unreasonable to my mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Scjessey, Wizardman, is one of the arbitrators so I think you should pay some serious attention there. Personally, I think that the administrator Werdna was within the bounds of blocking policy. Whether you should have been blocked is perhaps a different question, but setting the content and consensus question aside for the minute you were at 3RR in 2 days, versus ChildofMidnight being at 4RR in the same period. Unblock requests that look like protests against perceived unfairness don't really work - you might take that as a sign to take things easy. Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)