| Revision as of 19:18, 27 December 2012 editAlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,569 edits Arbitration motion regarding SchuminWeb← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:24, 27 December 2012 edit undoGimmetoo (talk | contribs)14,302 edits +Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Archive box|box-width=50px|]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]}} | {{Archive box|box-width=50px|]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]}} | ||
| {{TOCright}} | {{TOCright}} | ||
| == Explain your actions == | |||
| You reverted KW now 3 times, and you blocked him. Why should you not be blocked immediately for edit warring and administrative misconduct? ] (]) 18:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Not an answer. Why should ''you'' not be blocked? You don't make a controversial block and then say you're leaving in a few minutes. ] (]) 18:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: You appear to have engaged in edit warring and disruption, followed by administrative misconduct. "Multiple" admins closed it? Yeah, it looks like 2, including you. Perhaps if you had not been edit warring, another admin would have supported KW? Now, why should you not be blocked? ] (]) 18:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Yes, blocks are preventative. You were revert warring, and on-wiki comments indicate that you intended to continue revert warring. Indeed, it would appear the only reason you stopped is because you blocked the user you were edit warring with. ] (]) 14:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Or, one could say KW was reverting your disruption. ] (]) 15:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: You were the one edit-warring to close a discussion. If you really thought it was "necessary" to block KW, there was no need for ''you'' to do it, as there are numerous admins around ANI. You were not blocked this time. Let this be your warning. If you ever act in such a disreputable way again, you may be blocked without further warning or notice; You should know better. ] (]) 21:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Tut tut tut. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == FIFA world cup == | == FIFA world cup == | ||
Revision as of 21:24, 27 December 2012
 Archives |
Explain your actions
You reverted KW now 3 times, and you blocked him. Why should you not be blocked immediately for edit warring and administrative misconduct? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not an answer. Why should you not be blocked? You don't make a controversial block and then say you're leaving in a few minutes. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- You appear to have engaged in edit warring and disruption, followed by administrative misconduct. "Multiple" admins closed it? Yeah, it looks like 2, including you. Perhaps if you had not been edit warring, another admin would have supported KW? Now, why should you not be blocked? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, blocks are preventative. You were revert warring, and on-wiki comments indicate that you intended to continue revert warring. Indeed, it would appear the only reason you stopped is because you blocked the user you were edit warring with. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Or, one could say KW was reverting your disruption. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- You were the one edit-warring to close a discussion. If you really thought it was "necessary" to block KW, there was no need for you to do it, as there are numerous admins around ANI. You were not blocked this time. Let this be your warning. If you ever act in such a disreputable way again, you may be blocked without further warning or notice; You should know better. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Or, one could say KW was reverting your disruption. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, blocks are preventative. You were revert warring, and on-wiki comments indicate that you intended to continue revert warring. Indeed, it would appear the only reason you stopped is because you blocked the user you were edit warring with. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- You appear to have engaged in edit warring and disruption, followed by administrative misconduct. "Multiple" admins closed it? Yeah, it looks like 2, including you. Perhaps if you had not been edit warring, another admin would have supported KW? Now, why should you not be blocked? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Tut tut tut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.8.86 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
FIFA world cup
I protected the page as I want to get this issue resolved. You blocked God Football for violating 3RR but the dispute will no doubt continue as soon as his block expires. While there is some discussion on the talkpage already I don't think the discussion is yet stale. At least Warshy seems to think that the information added was useful. I don't imagine that the content added by God Football will remain in the article but perhaps consensus will be reached to create a "history of international football" or similar article. Currently discussion seems to be falling to the side of just reverting one another so I wanted to force discussion. James086 13:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you think the article should be unprotected then go ahead, I can clearly see that God Football is the centre of the problem. James086 13:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I just saw the note on my talkpage, I'll continue on Talk:FIFA Club World Cup. James086 13:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
User 86.42.8.86
I see you're also having issues with this user. They keep reverting my edits...edits I made to repair the damage done by them. I have raised the issues on his talk page in the hope a moderator/administrator will see just how much damage they are doing. Thanks for also trying to get them sorted for the benefit of wikipedia and the people that use it. User: 92.40.254.14User talk: 92.40.254.14 13:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I actually think I may have an account. I don't know why I've not been using it. I really should log in! my username is pippin0490...I think. With regards to the user, I shall keep track on the issue in the hopes it can be sorted. Thanks again.User: 92.40.254.14User talk: 92.40.254.14 13:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Courtesy notification of your talk page getting a mention, in case you hadn't seen it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb
Resolved by motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:
The accepted case is hereby suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. SchuminWeb is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)