| Revision as of 13:07, 24 August 2009 edit119.173.81.176 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:49, 26 August 2009 edit undo119.173.81.176 (talk) ←Blanked the pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Baiting == | |||
| It is clear that you are trying to Greglocock into a negative response. I have blocked this IP to prevent that. Please do not engage in such behavior in the future. ] 14:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I fail to understand why someone calling me a wanker and me reporting it would result in me being blocked. After I reported the editor for calling me a wanker I left a message on his talk page suggesting that we might be able to put these problems behind us and get on a little better http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Greglocock&diff=prev&oldid=309082512 this was responded to with an insult http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Greglocock&diff=prev&oldid=309220474 to which I replied that he might want to grow up but the offer of friendship still stands http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Greglocock&diff=prev&oldid=309248718. I don't see why I was blocked for this, the admin who blocked me, had already blocked the other editor and then removed the block, now he blocks me. I am not an anon IP that has edited wikipedia for 24 hours, I have chosen not to make an acct that is all, and I am being blocked for telling someone to grow up when they have called me a wanker. Please remove my block now|decline=Chillum put it a lot better than I could--just because one editor might have been uncivil is no excuse for you to be incivil as well. ]] 22:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| Your very insincere apology included gems such as "You might want to grow up", and "right now you are just making yourself look stupid". This is clearly an attempt to get a user with a short temper to lose it so that you can get the person blocked like you have been trying to for a while. This block of you is to prevent that. ] 14:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Also, your comment about vandalizing Misplaced Pages does not fill me with confidence in your good faith either(which you also presented in the form of an insincere apology). "Perhaps if I vandalise an article I can hope that no one discovers my actions for three weeks". ] 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: If I had wanted to get him blocked then I would have reported him to somewhere that blocks people such as ANI, rather than somewhere that that tries to mediate such as wikiquette alerts. It states on wikiquette alerts "What WQA can do: | |||
| * Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors who are engaging in incivility, or who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies | |||
| * Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility | |||
| * Give guidance on where on Misplaced Pages to take a particular problem | |||
| What WQA CANNOT do: | |||
| * Give or enforce blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." | |||
| which makes it pretty clear that it isn't going to result in someone being blocked. | |||
| I also stated on wikiquette alerts "an apology or block is hardly required, I just hope he does not act in such a rude manner in the future" | |||
| which also makes it pretty clear that I was not looking for him to be blocked. | |||
| If you don't mind me being blunt, I think your choice in blocking me was just as wrong as your choice to block Greg - I realise these comments are probably just going to makes you decide not to unblock me out of spite, but did you block me to try to make up for your initial mistake in blocking greg? There was a little harmless banter on a talk page, and you had to hand out a block to someone. I should think before I report old issues, just as you should think before you hand out blocks. ] (]) 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The comments where I suggested I could vandalise (British English, heard of it? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vandalise ) was clearly tongue in cheek and if you wish to base your actions on that, you will lose a little more credibility as an admin in my eyes. ] (]) 14:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The decision as to if an unblock is justified will be made my another administrator. You don't need to worry about spite. Going to someone's page and telling them that they look stupid and need to grow up is clearly an attempt to piss someone off in my eyes. ] 14:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::To the reviewing admin, I will be at work so in this case there is no need to consult me regarding your decision in this matter. ] 14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Calling me a wanker and throwing my attempts and peace back in my face could be considered far stronger candidates as attempts to piss someone off, but they were made by an editor who has established himself on wikipedia, while I am just an IP editor. Makes sense, unblock the person using the word wanker, and block the person who said grow up. Nice to see that you consider my actions to be more deserving of a block. ] (]) 14:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blocks are preventative, a block 3 days later does not prevent anything. You however are actively drawing out the dispute. Another person not getting blocked in no ways justifies your actions. You need to walk away from this situation instead of continuing to escalate it. When your block expires please remember this. ] 14:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I did not seek a block for Greg, neither did I deserve one for my actions. I find your block to be more provocative than anything said by either myself or Greg. Greg is a big boy and seems more than capable of dealing with my comments, I am sure he is well aware that a personal attack from himself would cause him problems - the wikiquette report was not going to result in anything, the comments on his talk page were hardly going to result in WW3 - your actions in first blocking him (without actually going to the trouble of finding out exactly what happened) and then blocking me were far worse than the comments made by either Greg or myself. ] (]) 15:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: This is so stupid that it is almost funny. I have been blocked for saying "makes you look stupid" and "grow up" - wow!! when I see those words staring at me, I can see the high level of offence they must have caused. My contempt for the above two admins is beyond words. ] (]) 00:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=Blocking me in order to prevent the possibility of another editor getting blocked due to his supposed inability to refrain from personal attacks is unreasonable - the other editor is an adult, and therefore capable of making his own choices and dealing with the consequences. Also blocking me for stating that the editors actions makes him "look stupid" and that he should "grow up" is a total overreaction, especially consider that the editor in question stated that I was a "wanker" and the actions of another editor made him "look like a wanker" - if you are going to block everyone who states something as offensive as "grow up" then about 50% of the editors on wikipedia will be blocked. Blocking me for baiting is quite far from the truth, the admin in question made a big deal of pointing out some mildly offensive comments that I made, but totally disregards the olive branch that I offered on two occasions. I can see no reason for the initial block other than the suspicion that people treat IP editors with, I should be unblocked on principal|decline=Since you are continuing to be incivil and attack other editors here, I see no reason to lift the block at this time, IP or not. Giving an olive branch laced with degrading remarks isn't the best way to resolve your differences. Take a breather and if you can come back and indicate that you'll avoid being nasty to others in the future, we'd be happy to have you. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :: I think that the admin involved made his mind up as soon as he saw it was an IP having a problem with an established editor - he initially blocked the established editor, but then unblocked him and blocked me instead - people may draw their own conclusions as to who deserves a block - the established editor making person attacks, using profanity - or the IP editor who said "grow up" and "makes you look stupid" | |||
| :: This comment by the blocking admin has shown me how much good faith he has shown regarding me and my edits http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Chillum&diff=prev&oldid=309381906 | |||
| ] (]) 14:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You already have had your block reviewed. Do you really think it will be effective to in one breath say "My contempt for the above two admins is beyond words" and in the next breath make another unblock request? Surely you realize that being uncivil to the first reviewer of your request will not help with your next, especially since your block is about civility. Such comments show me I was not wrong in reacting to your uncivil behavior with a block. | |||
| :As for the diff you gave, that comment I was responding to could be referring to any number of IPs I have blocked recently, I have no reason to think Matthead was referring to you. Or was it in reference to you? ] 14:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Considering that Matthead has already accused this IP of being used by an existing account, and that the link he gave on your talk page linked to a conversation that explicitly accuses this IP, it did not take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together. Did you not bother clicking on the links he made available? | |||
| :: On the subject of civility - 1. I thought you blocked me for baiting, not civility? 2. I am sorry if you are offended by my comments, but I have a certain amount of contempt for both admins involved - the admin who declined my my unblock request seems to have done nothing but say "er yeah, the other admin is right" while your actions have given me the impression that you are either 1. biased against IP editors, 2. incompetent as an admin. 3 both 1 and 2. | |||
| :: You have the tools to block me, that is all. I don't agree with your decision, and I consider the arguments you put forward in order to justify your actions to be far from convincing. I wish to speak my mind in my unblock appeal, even if that does not result in my unblock request being granted. Would you prefer that I give some half-hearted and insincere apology in an attempt to get unblocked? ] (]) 15:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I would prefer that you accepted that the block is due to your behavior and not try to blame it on the blocking admin and the admin who reviewed your unblock request. I would prefer it if you waited out your block then acted in a less disruptive manner. Also, if Matthead is correct about you having other accounts then I must ask you not to use them while blocked as that would be considered block evasion. | |||
| :I will gladly allow you yet another unblock review but if you continue to use the talk page to express your contempt of other Misplaced Pages editors I will remove your ability to edit the page for the duration of the block. I suggest you take your contempt and put it to some good use outside of Misplaced Pages, try jogging. ] 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: If you think I am using other accounts to get around a block, then please make a checkuser request, however if I was trying to get around a block then surely using an IP which is traceable would be a silly idea - but just to confirm things, I am not using an account to edit, neither am I using any other IPs. | |||
| :: If you wish to use your admin tools to prevent me from expressing my doubts in your ability as an admin, then that would be your choice, however it seems a little unfair that you are able to remove my ability to edit wikipedia because you don't agree with my actions, you are threatening to remove my ability to edit my IPs talk page just because I don't think you are performing well as an admin. | |||
| :: Also, I imagine it might be considered to be a conflict of interest if you blocked me from editing my talk page because I have criticised your actions as an admin. | |||
| :: Try to see things from my point of view, I have to sit out a block that I don't agree with - you should be able to handle a bit of criticism concerning your actions. ] (]) 15:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It is a remarkably rare occurrence that people agree with their own block. I have seen it a few times, but it is certainly unusual. ] 01:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Are you speaking from personal experience? Do many users disagree with your actions as an admin? Well, you are an admin - I guess they must all be wrong. ] (]) 07:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I am speaking from 3 years of personal experience as an administrator yes, and I have had no problem with my blocks passing review. ] 14:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Then it would seem that the problem lies with wikipedia as a whole - or wikipedia admins as a whole, not just you. Right now, I am annoyed with wikipedia and the whole blocking bullshit - my edits generally have been decent edits, no vandalism, no posting goatse - yet right now I am prevented from editing because some editors who have been made admins due to the amount of time spent editing have a problem with me "baiting" someone who called me a wanker. 72 hours in which I could have made lots of decent edits - while the editor who called me a wanker is able to edit and just got told "try to be nice in future" - the whole situation stinks. Would I have been blocked for exactly the same actions, if I had been editing for three years? ] (]) 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. And, as you know, I would have blocked the person who called you a "wanker" if it has not happened days ago. In fact I did block this person before I realized your complaints were about something from days ago. This whole theory about favoritism seems to disregard these demonstrable facts. ] 14:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Then perhaps you should not have removed my comments from his talk page, it might have been more useful to let my comments stand and either he would not respond in a negative way (no harm done) or he would have made a personal attack and you could have taken action. Blocking me was like arresting someone for counting their money outside an ATM, because it might incite someone to perform a mugging. I do not agree with your action, the reaction to my wikiquette report or the attitude of the admins involved in my block appeal - there seems to be nothing I can do about it, but all it has achieved is 1. reinforced the fact that calling someone a wanker is OK, as long as a few days pass 2. prevented me from making decent edits for 72 hours. 3. Wasted the time of a few people. 4. Made me reluctant to ever report anyone again, incase I am accused of baiting. ] (]) 15:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :"''It might have been more useful to let my comments stand and either he would not respond in a negative way (no harm done) or he would have made a personal attack and you could have taken action''". This comment of yours only reinforces the belief of mine that it was meant to bait. We don't '''want''' people to respond in a negative way, and we certainly don't want people poking the bear so that "action can be taken". The other user stopped, yet you still continue to act insulting even after your block. ] 17:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I know this is wikipedia and not a court of law - but surely your belief is not really relevant - my comments to Greg were designed to persuade him that he was wrong, and to persuade him that any further interactions between us could be friendly, but that it was up to him. The other user certainly did not stop, his replies to my offers of peace while not containing obscene language were condescending, rude, snide put-downs. But, what can I say? your above comment gives me an idea of how open minded you are regarding my actions, and how much you are willing to consider that you might have made a mistake in your judgment of me. Blocking people based on what you guess their motives to be is absurd, take action based on actions and/or clear intent, not on what you imagine might be going on in the head of someone who you have never spoken to before. My comments to Greg could have been sincere, a joke, misunderstood, confusion due to cultural differences, provocation, insult, or just idle chat - you have no idea, yet you blocked me based on your guess. | |||
| :: I am sorry, I am sure you are a really nice guy and probably lots of fun to chill out and smoke with, but I your actions as an admin in this incident suck. Poor judgment, lack of an open mind - you made up your mind and blasted away with your block ability, without a moments consideration that you might have be making a mistake, which should have been the first thing on your mind, considering that you just blocked/unblocked Greg. | |||
| :: Actually now I think about it, it does make a lot of sense - you made a mistake blocked/unblocked Greg, to admit to another mistake ie. blocking/unblocking me would really give people doubt about your ability as an admin. So it is safer for you to stick to your guns and keep on claiming that you knew due to your sixth sense that I was baiting the other user. ] (]) 17:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting how your theories do not take into account the possibility that the block was nothing more than a reaction to your poor behavior. You really don't know jack shit about who I am or what my motives are so your theory is simply a work of fiction you have come up with, using no basis beyond the fact that you think you have been treated unfairly. You seem to be dodging personal responsibility here, and that makes me worried that you will not gain a lesson from this block and repeat your error. I sincerely hope you will not need to repeat this lesson in the future. ] 18:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Point taken, I don't know you, neither do I have any insights into your motivation for blocking me other than what you have stated - pretty much the same for what you know about me and my motives. The main differences are that my unproven theories about you have resulted in me speaking my mind here and telling you that I don't think much of your actions, while your unproven theories about me have resulted in me being blocked from editing and a permanent record of that being recorded. As to dodging personal responsibility I should put my hands up and state that I did say that a user's actions made him look stupid, I did say that the same user should grow up and I did report that user for calling me a wanker, when I could have just as easily ignored that insult because reporting it might result in that user being blocked. I never claimed not to have been responsible for those actions, I just didn't think they were worthy of being blocked. A simple "stop fucking with that user, it is going to result in a block" would have solved the problem in a much nicer way - I would be editing and thinking "hey, what a nice guy that chillum is - I will go out of my way to cooperate with whatever he asks in the future" - but giving warnings for very minor incidents would just not provide the drama of a block would it? ] (]) 20:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Anyway, once my block has expired I will continue editing wikipedia and even though we were unable to agree on the block, I don't see why this would prevent us from interacting in a friendly and productive manner in the future - I have no reason to believe your actions were done with anything other than the best interests of wikipedia as motivation. ] (]) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||