Misplaced Pages

User talk:DegenFarang: 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 17:39, 20 February 2013 editDe728631 (talk | contribs)56,510 edits →Talk page discussions and noticeboards: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:43, 4 January 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(37 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Steve Badger == == Block reinstated ==


<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for harassing other users and violating your unblock conditions . If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}, but you should read the ] first. &nbsp;&mdash; <strong><span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">]</span></strong> 01:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef -->
Hello,<br>it seems neither your proposal to delete nor your changes to the ] article are supported by consensus at this time, so I would advise you against continuing to make drastic edits to the article; Do feel free to continue discussing the topic at its talk page, and you may want to invite further people to the discussion at e.g. ] or ].<br>] 19:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:I didn't make drastic edits, I made a series of minor edits which when combined amounted to a drastically different article. I did that on purpose so people could revert individual edits they didn't agree with - but instead people are just rolling back all of them. How would you advise I proceed to avoid this happening again? ] (]) 23:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:: Possible, I only looked at the combined diff and saw 1200 bytes removed, including a New York Times reference.<br>Like with any content dispute I would advise to work out a consensus version on the article talk page. You've brought up two points you're contesting there already; give people some time to respond to that, and if there seems to be consensus (possibly silent consensus) make the change and move on to your next concern.<br>] 23:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::: Ok I will take my time then, that's probably a good idea. As for the NYT source, that source only says that he won a WSOP bracelet, which is already sourced in the Hendon Mob link. That's another thing that I think is clear: there are way too many sources that all give the same information. It seems like an effort to make him seem more notable than he really is. ] (]) 23:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


{{unblock reviewed|reason=As discussed at the ANI, an interaction ban accomplishes the same thing. 99% of my problems on Misplaced Pages and nearly all of my blocks are from interacting with one other editor. If we were banned from interacting, this problem would go away, and Misplaced Pages would retain a valuable editor.|decline=I have spent some long time reading through the ANI thread and your and ]'s edits. Having done so I do not believe that you will, if unblocked, be a net positive influence here.--]] 21:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)}}
# Your AfD nominations are all incomplete and not formatted correctly. Please make sure to use the correct templates on the nomination pages, and transclude them at the day's listing. I've fixed the Steve Badger nomination for you in the hopes that you'll notice.
# Please slow down. While I can believe that some of the material should actually be removed per our policies, if you continue with aggressive content trimming removals and nominations for deletion will get you into trouble very quickly. Wait for the results of those AfDs before nominating any more.
# ]. {{diff2|538789167|This re-revert}} was not appropriate.
] 23:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:Ok thanks. You can close the Steve Badger AFD if you want, I don't think it will pass and I'll be content if we can come to agreement on the talk page on improvements. We are making progress in that regard. I hadn't seen BRD before. I wish somebody had showed me that a long time ago. I've always used the '3 revert rule' as my guide. I'll go to the talk page on that article. ] (]) 00:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::I don't know where the appropriate place to discuss this is, but regarding the external link spam, this has been discussed at length in the past. Sources like PokerListings and PokerPages are fine as sources, but not appropriate as external links on poker BLP's because there are so many of them that could be used, so either we have to have 20+ external links for poker players and let every spammer include theirs, or we have to restrict it to just their own homepages/twitter profiles etc, which was the consensus the last time I can recall this being discussed. I was successful 1-2 years ago in removing these from basically all poker BLP's but they have creeped back in. ] (]) 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::: Can you point me at that discussion? I've also posted a section at ] before I saw your comment here. ] 00:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


While we wait for your unblock request to be reviewed, I don't suppose you could explain (mainly for the unblocking admin's benefit) for the rationale of ? ] ] ] 20:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
==Talkback==
{{talkback|Jayjg|Constant Rijkenberg|ts=21:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)}} :I was blanking the page ] (]) 21:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed | 1=Seeking second opinion. You can read my reason for requesting the unblock above. | decline=Procedural. Anthony's decline above ''is'' a second opinion. You don't get to shop around until you find an admin who'll give you the response you want. Either file a better unblock request, or expect to lose your talkpage access. ]&nbsp;]&zwj;] 22:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)}}
]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
*I will leave this for another admin to review, but I don't feel like we can take you at your word. It was nearly a year ago that you said Clearly, that was not the case. You have already had your second chance, your third chance... and so on. You want a ''ninth'' chance to prove you can exercise some self control? Do you really think it is realistic to expect that? I would suggest you consider the ] only maybe make it more like a year instead of six months. Maybe in that length of time you will learn to let go of this grudge and participate here in a way that is beneficial rather than disruptive. ] (]) 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
::I don't need any chances with an interaction ban. As soon as I violated it he would report me. I guess a year is not a long time in WikiTime but I think I did show a lot of self control. It took a year to get here again lol ] (]) 22:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:::One way interaction bans are rarely if ever workable, and constraining another editor to avoid you would be placing an unfair restriction on their editing because of ''your'' behaviour. As such, an indefinite block (and, given , I think we can take out the "de") is the most equitable solution for Misplaced Pages. ]&nbsp;]&zwj;] 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
::::It's not just my behavior, he's just much better at wikilawyering and I'm very bad at it. If I was as well versed in digging up old stuff and citing various policies, he would have been blocked a long time ago. ] (]) 23:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
And just lost you the ability to edit this talkpage. ]&nbsp;]&zwj;] 23:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


:Yep, that pretty clearly indicated that there is no reason to continue to discuss this with you. I would repeat my suggestion to take an extended break, then try appealing to ] ] (]) 00:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
== Talk page discussions and noticeboards ==


== ] ==
On talk pages and noticeboards, please do not remove valid discussion context that was added by other editors as you did . This is absolutely not ok per our ] and moreover, it makes you look bad in the end. The same goes for changes of your own discussion contributions after someone has replied to them . If you would like to add to old statements of yours, or change them, it is best to strike them, using <code><nowiki><s>old text...</s></nowiki></code> and then add your new version. Altering text that has already been referred to by other editors makes it hard to follow the discussion. Regards, ] (]) 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Noting for the record that Degen has engaged in more tag edit-warring here while already blocked. Have blocked the IP and tried to express to him what a bad idea that was. ] (]) 19:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
== Blocked for sockpuppetry ==
{{tmbox
| style = background: #f8eaba;
| image = ]
| text = '''''This account has been ] indefinitely''''' from editing for ] per evidence presented at ]. Note that multiple accounts are ], ''but'' using them for ] reasons '''is not'''. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on the page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;}} below, but you should read the ] first. ''']]]''' 07:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)<!-- Template:SockBlock -->
}}

Latest revision as of 09:43, 4 January 2023

Block reinstated

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for harassing other users and violating your unblock conditions . If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  — madman 01:57, 21 February 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

As discussed at the ANI, an interaction ban accomplishes the same thing. 99% of my problems on Misplaced Pages and nearly all of my blocks are from interacting with one other editor. If we were banned from interacting, this problem would go away, and Misplaced Pages would retain a valuable editor.

Decline reason:

I have spent some long time reading through the ANI thread and your and 2005's edits. Having done so I do not believe that you will, if unblocked, be a net positive influence here.--Anthony Bradbury 21:06, 21 February 2013 (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.

While we wait for your unblock request to be reviewed, I don't suppose you could explain (mainly for the unblocking admin's benefit) for the rationale of this revert? Ritchie333 20:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I was blanking the page DegenFarang (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Seeking second opinion. You can read my reason for requesting the unblock above.

Decline reason:

Procedural. Anthony's decline above is a second opinion. You don't get to shop around until you find an admin who'll give you the response you want. Either file a better unblock request, or expect to lose your talkpage access. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:35, 21 February 2013 (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.

I don't need any chances with an interaction ban. As soon as I violated it he would report me. I guess a year is not a long time in WikiTime but I think I did show a lot of self control. It took a year to get here again lol DegenFarang (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
One way interaction bans are rarely if ever workable, and constraining another editor to avoid you would be placing an unfair restriction on their editing because of your behaviour. As such, an indefinite block (and, given this, I think we can take out the "de") is the most equitable solution for Misplaced Pages. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not just my behavior, he's just much better at wikilawyering and I'm very bad at it. If I was as well versed in digging up old stuff and citing various policies, he would have been blocked a long time ago. DegenFarang (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And that just lost you the ability to edit this talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that pretty clearly indicated that there is no reason to continue to discuss this with you. I would repeat my suggestion to take an extended break, then try appealing to WP:BASC Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:172.6.236.155

Noting for the record that Degen has engaged in more tag edit-warring here while already blocked. Have blocked the IP and tried to express to him what a bad idea that was. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DegenFarang. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rschen7754 07:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)