Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk | contribs) at 00:20, 9 October 2013 (Reverted to revision 576365175 by PantherLeapord (talk): Just stay off his talkpage - and you deserved to be templated. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talkback

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reporting User:Dogmaticeclectic. Thank you.

October 2013

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

Request reason:

I was blocked because of how I discussed a case involving me at WP:ANI itself. I would now like to contribute to that discussion in a more reasonable manner - preferably before it is closed and/or archived, of course. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

To allow reasonable discussion at ANI. User to be reblocked if problems recur. Toddst1 (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have prevented the discussion at ANI being archived before your block expires or is lifted so you can participate. At this stage it will not be archived due to inactivity until 00:00 10 October 2013 UTC but may be closed at an admin's discretion sooner. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 04:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

While I don't see any harm in an unblock, you can of course post comments here and ask someone to copy them for you even if it's a more annoying way. Nil Einne (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've amended my request above per your comments. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Toddst1, perhaps you could consider reversing your block yourself so that I can participate - more reasonably this time, as I mentioned above - in the ongoing discussion? I'm concerned that it may be closed completely without giving me a chance to provide further input. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne, while I'm waiting for this request to be considered, I would like to question your support for the behaviour ban - given that WP:0RR is virtually impossible for an editor to comply with, you're basically supporting a 6-month-long block. I would like to request that you reconsider your support for two bans in favour of the one that has the most community support right now. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bots not working

User:Redrose64 (I'm assuming you have notifications enabled), I noticed you've been involved in discussions regarding User:Misza13's bots in the past, so I'm letting you know that none of them seem to be working right now. Could you look into this? (I can't report this properly right now since I'm blocked.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd noticed that too... --Redrose64 (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you planning to file a report at WP:BON? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I was planning to but got distracted by a phone call - as a result of which I now have a job interview on Monday - but I have reported it to BON. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

About the ani discussion

Thanks for discussing things more constructively. I'm glad I've unblocked you and you are able to participate there.

After reading your recent comments, it's clear you're frustrated with the process there. WP:ANIISLOUSY comes to mind. That was written for new administrators but may be appropriate. The good news is no matter what the outcome, with a little time, you can appeal and if things have gone well in the intervening time, most sanctions either expire or often can be lifted.

My observation is that you're generally a very good editor but like many here, when you get into a minor conflict, the rancor can escalate quickly and sometimes judgement goes out the window. Cooling off blocks are not appropriate but self-imposed cooling off wikibreaks often help. If you can't cool off, then you should really consider not editing because in your case, I've seen it get out of hand quickly more than once. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just maybe some constructive advice.

Just my $0.02 worth. Good luck. I'm starting a bit of a wikibreak myself. Toddst1 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate your comments and you striking out your support for the behaviour ban. I must admit that my opinion of you was heavily negatively influenced by our interaction during our dispute a while back, but I can say that it's changed for the better, and significantly so. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hello. Per the result of this ANI discussion, the community has imposed a topic ban on your editing; you are topic-banned from all articles and talk pages related to Microsoft products, broadly construed, for a period of six months.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Obiwankenobi, I would like to request that you clarify what exactly I am banned from editing. As I read the original proposal and subsequent discussion: (1) the ban was to apply to article talk pages (and articles, of course), not talk pages in general; (2) there was no consensus for the "broadly construed" part; (3) the ban was to apply to articles "about" Microsoft products, not those merely "related to" them. I would ask that you change the wording of the ban to more accurately reflect community consensus.

Read WP:TBAN. If you do then you will see the following passage: Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.. As such there IS consensus for the "Broadly construed" part. If you keep on trying to wiki-lawyer your way out of the topic ban then you will only find yourself receiving escalating blocks until you stop. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it seems to me that you didn't add the ban to the list at WP:RESTRICT correctly. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no restriction on talk pages in general; I'm not sure where you're reading that. Further, there wasn't any discussion of restricting the topic ban to only articles about Microsoft products; per TBAN, topic bans are in general intended to be broadly construed, and in this case the topic is Microsoft products. If there is a section about a Microsoft product on a page that is itself *not* about a Microsoft product, then the topic ban would apply to that section. This is not intended to cover pages tangentially related to Microsoft products (so, for example, there was no consensus to ban you from editing pages about Apple products as an example, or Operating systems as another example, though, you would have to stay away from sections that specifically cover Microsoft). While this wasn't discussed, I do think that because of the pervasiveness of Microsoft products, your editing of a section that has a tangential mention of a Microsoft product (e.g. "John's law firm used mostly Windows but switched to Apple later on (<and then you add something here>") would fall outside the remit of this ban. My general advice would be to use common sense. If you think a reasonable admin would consider that a given edit was "too close" to being about a Microsoft product for comfort, then don't make the edit. If you are unsure whether a particular edit may violate this topic ban, feel free to ask me or another editor who participated in the discussion for their opinion on the matter. If you want a definition of a Microsoft product, I would define it as a software, hardware, or service produced and/or sold by Microsoft with Microsoft branding or logo.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)