Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) at 09:33, 21 March 2013 (→Thanks: cheers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello

You may be getting a bit over-eager with something like this. Most folks prefer to tend to their own talk pages themselves. I can appreciate the sentiment, but just thought I might mention it. — Ched :  ?  21:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So, WP:BOLD is extinct?

Really, "you're not an admin" is annoying .

It drives against core principles.

Was that a good edit? If an admin did it, would it have been reverted? Why not?

See also . Do you really think that all those messages were helping? I didn't remove anything; just tried to get things back on track.

Guess why I'm not a registered, active user any more. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion. I would have likely said the same exact thing to an admin. too. (I'd have emailed it, but that's not an option for IP addresses.) No slight or offense was intended at all. — Ched :  ?  21:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I know. And I was not offended by your comment; I just find it sad that the 'admins are special' attitude is so endemic in the community; I think even you have caught a bit of it.

In theory, it's a good edit. So was this; If you have 10 mins, see also User talk:88.104.17.92 (me, a couple days ago).

Misplaced Pages is collapsing under its own bureaucratic nonsense, which is why I have (ok, mostly) given up on it. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please explain the reason for my block, so I can appeal it. I don't believe I have made any disruptive edits. Thanks. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, please post the following to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#ANI;

"I have now been blocked from editing; I have no idea why. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)"

Thanks. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I think I may have been blocked in error, 'collateral damage' when a well-known-sock was disrupting things. I tried to explain that, but was blocked... please, check my contribs. I don't think there's anything I've done wrong, so I'm not sure how to phrase this appeal... help? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've reviewed the IP's contribution history, the comments here, and at . This all looks like a big failure to communicate. It is reasonable to wonder why your report to a noticeboard was reverted without explanation. The tone of that inquery was not appropriate, and its not appropriate to edit war a message onto someone's talk page, but until the block message, no one responded at all beyond reverts with non-explanatory edit summaries. While not ideal conduct on the part of 88.104.27.2, in light of the failure to communicate, I don't think leaving the block in place is appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 04:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm very confused what's going on; I can't remember the last time I saw someone blocked without warning except in cases of blatant vandalism and other things that demonstrate obvious bad faith. I don't see what you've done to deserve blocking (your comments on Seb___'s talk weren't blockable, and nothing else appears to be problematic), let alone without warning. Why didn't you already file an unblock request? Something like "unblock|I don't believe I have made any disruptive edits and I wasn't told what I'd done wrong" should work fine. I'm going to ask Bwilkins to comment here, and I'll copy your message to the ANI thread at AN. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

It's probably just a misunderstanding. I was trying to help with the ongoing problem, but everything was reverted before I had any chance... and then I was blocked.

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help sort it out. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your point about collateral damage makes sense, since a disruptive sock would be blocked without warning; perhaps you got misidentified? Although why would "disruptive editing" be the block reason, rather than "block evasion"? I guess we'll have to wait for Bwilkins to comment. Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Help? Edit warring on one user's talkpage, wholly inappropriate AIV postings, unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere ... all disruptive (edit conflict X3) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps some of his other edits were disruptive (he's clearly not new here) but the AIV posting was appropriate. Dingypony (talk · contribs) really did need to be blocked as a troll. The "inappropriate" comment in the AIV report was a quote from Dingy. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

See the statement above: "Guess why I'm not a registered, active user any more". Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW - I don't consider any of the conversations I've had with IP88 troubling. (here and User talk:Ched). I actually agree that IP editors, and even registered non-admins. do tend to get the short end of the stick at times. Maybe I'm dipping into the AGF well one too many times, but I don't see anything extremely troubling either. I admit that I haven't really examined everything, but TY to Nyttend for the note to BMW. — ChedZILLA 00:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Review pretty much all of the IP's contributions (other than his talkpage) today - you'll get the right picture (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• This IP has only one AIV post, and it was Dingypony; yes, he was already blocked, so the "Requests for further sanctions against a blocked user (e.g., talk page, e-mail blocks) should go to AN/I, as a bot automatically removes accounts here that are blocked" warning should have been heeded, but that's a single incident of not obeying something that's easily missed. We only make an issue of that if someone edit-wars with the bot. After reviewing this IP's contributions to lots of different pages, I see edits that try (sometimes not the best way, but in good faith) to help communication and to participate properly, and I even see a calm discussion of copyright. The only little bit of problem is at Seb's talk, and that's only because he kept trying to get Seb to explain the reversion when Seb (as far as I can see) refused to reply. It's far from disruption. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

---

• "Edit warring on one user's talkpage"? No, I did not.

• I asked why they'd reverted my (valid) AIV report and they reverted it .
• I undid that, just the once and they reverted again with no explanation again
• I asked them to calm down and they reverted that .
• I posted on AN (because ANI was protected) and gave a statuary AN notification which was also reverted .

• "wholly inappropriate AIV postings" - Dingypony (talk · contribs) had been blocked, and had then written "Misplaced Pages's Judeophobic Islamic supremacist bias" , so I posted a request at AIV to "Please revoke talk, DENY.". I think that was appropriate?

• "unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere"? What's that about - can you please show me what I'm supposed to have done?

• "Review pretty much all of the IP's contributions (other than his talkpage) today - you'll get the right picture" - can you please show any diff that indicates I've been disruptive? I've only made 63 edits, so it's not much to check - I think they're all 'good'?

Thanks, 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

---

A review of my edits - my entire editing history;

• I made comments about an unblock request on AN, discussing the need for users to show they understood the reason for their block before unblocking.

• I looked at talk-page comments on Marco Polo and made some suggestions for improving it (I couldn't edit it, because of semi prot) oh, and I removed some vandalism then suggestions

• I suggested a rename

• Asked Ched about the unblock of 'Evangp'

• Discussed the copyright implications of archives on Mr. Wales' talk

• More discussion of 'EvanGP'

• More on the copyright thing

• Back to Evan

• Commented on AN re 'Headstrong4ever'

• Fixed a typo in passing

• Got into discussions about how best to deal with Headstrong4ever

...I'm getting bored now, but the rest... I added more about copyright on Jimbo's page, spoke more about blocking notices, tried to help fix an article... then - when I wanted to post on ANI - ran into the semi-prot of it, and tried to help out with that.

That is all I have done. It's not much, but - what of this is "abuse of editing privileges", which warrants a block with no warnings at all?

I can't appeal a block if I don't understand what I've done wrong.

If my block is valid, can you please tell me what I've done wrong. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It certainly does seem to me that Bwilkins made a bad block, but I'd be interested to know why, immediately after the block, other users started vandalizing Seb's talk page to the point that it had to be protected. Did you have any control over those IP's? That is the only thing to me that looks suspicious. The AIV report was probably just a misunderstanding (they thought you were anti-Muslim, not the person you were reporting). —Soap— 01:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Those IP's, and any of that vandalism, is totally unrelated to me. I can't request a CU, but I'm absolutely happy for any CU to poke around. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"why, immediately after the block, other users started vandalizing Seb's talk page" - I guess that's not unusual for that prolific sock? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Considering all this, I would support unblocking. If the editor really ends up making further trouble, there's no prejudice against blocking again, but at the present time, I just cannot find a way to solidly justify a block... and that seems to be the opinion of other users responding here. I would boldly unblock but I generally have a lot of respect for BWilkins's judgement and am assuming I'm missing something, and that he'll clarify the situation for us. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The only reason I even became aware of it, Soap, was because I wanted to post on ANI regarding "Headstrong4ever" and couldn't, because it'd been semi'd. See 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

@Salvidrim Forget "a way to solidly justify a block" - can you suggest any way to justify any kind of block? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested post while waiting

{{adminhelp}} Please post this to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Headstrong4ever

- - -

The user has made edits like and . Not perfect, but surely not "just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren" that can't be productive editors? Hey, they used references (even if they were bad ones) - that's 1000% better than most new articles. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

- - -

I can't post it because I'm blocked; but even if unblocked, ANI is still semi'd. Thanks, 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick

{{helpme}} Please post this to User_talk:Sphilbrick#Durneydiaz_Unblocked;

- - -

"Can I get you to agree if someone was blocked incorrectly, it would be a rather weird policy that they should explain what rule they broke, if they didn't break one"

Hahaha, stunning irony, because I'm incorrectly blocked right now; I've broken no rules, so I do not know how I can appeal.

Have a nice trip; I hope this is all sorted out before your return. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

- - -

Thanks, 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

KWW

{{helpme}}

Hi KWW,

You just said "Don't put words in my mouth" - but, come on...

I quoted you saying Not perfect, but surely not "just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren" that can't be productive editors?

You'd written that exact thing

So, I object to your claim that I put words into your mouth. I directly quoted what you'd written. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

 Left a message for him gwickwire_editing 02:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I never said that Brazilian schoolchildren couldn't be productive editors, only that it was approaching the point where one could conclude that this particular one could not be.—Kww(talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Why?

Not wishing to be awkward here but... I've been blocked for 3 hours now, and nobody has told me why... there's no reason for the block, no warning, no explanation of what I have done wrong. The only reason given is "Disruptive editing" but I have made no disruptive edits. I had no warnings, and I've had no explanations. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Just an FYI

I've opened a subsection below your original posting on AN calling for an unblock. Kurtis 03:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Sincere thanks to those who helped me get unblocked. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I noted this morning that you opened an AN regarding me, and forgot to notify me as per the rules (I do have e-mail enabled if you're unable to post there, or someone else would most definitely have helped you to let me know). I'm concerned that you felt it unnecessary to give me the opportunity to "defend" myself. If you had visited my talkpage, you'll a) find that I'm extremely open to discussion when politely approached, and b) see a fairly extensive discussion of the block there, which has been described as both possibly bad, and also quite possibly understandable. In your AN report, you linked here to your talkpage stating that I had not responded to a question. As I had already posted here twice, and because the block had been lifted, I no longer had your talkpage watchlisted and was unaware that you were waiting for more of a response. Please ask questions directly in the future so that we can avoid communication problems. I will repeat what I have said elsewhere, my first investigation of edit-summary-less AIV reports that appeared to match some bizarre similar ANI postings, incivility, and reversion of someone's removal of your comments on their own talkpage added together to appear to be disruptive in toto. The first rule of blocks is that they are designed to protect, and it was my belief that such (extremely short term) protection was required. I'm certainly glad that was not the case in the long run. Cheers. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. (WHOIS  Geolocate  Proxy Checker Current blocks XTools Global contributions) (RIRs: Africa America Asia-Pacific Europe Latin America/Caribbean)