Revision as of 21:22, 11 June 2008 view sourceDendodge (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers12,910 edits →Regarding your blocks: We'll wait← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:50, 12 June 2008 view source LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,615 edits →Request at WP:RfAR for your "without prejudice" desysopping: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
::Has anyone considered the possibility that perhaps he went to sleep, the clown ate him, and it is in fact the clown that is now doing the blocking? ] (]) 19:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | ::Has anyone considered the possibility that perhaps he went to sleep, the clown ate him, and it is in fact the clown that is now doing the blocking? ] (]) 19:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::I think we wait now, just dont make any more unreasonable blocks, or consensus seems to be to open an ArcCom case to maybe get you desysopped, just a friendly warning<span style="cursor: crosshair">......] .. <small>]</small><sup>]</sup></span> 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | :::I think we wait now, just dont make any more unreasonable blocks, or consensus seems to be to open an ArcCom case to maybe get you desysopped, just a friendly warning<span style="cursor: crosshair">......] .. <small>]</small><sup>]</sup></span> 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Request at WP:RfAR for your "without prejudice" desysopping == | |||
It is with considerable regret that I would advise you that I have filed a ] per the above matter. I assure you that it was done with utmost concern for both yourself and the encyclopedia/community only, and I hope that you will return to contest the request/removal and to discuss your recent actions. ] (]) 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:50, 12 June 2008
messages (+) | ||||||||||||||||||
Template:Archive box collapsible
LOLJ00 are funneh guy, HUH!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!>?!?!?!?!? Metal bands need protectionAfter viewing the long articles that the rock bands Tool, Black Sabbath, AC/DC and Guns N' Roses I feel that all of them need to be semi-protected, so that only established users can edit them. SignshareAre you a Ja Rule fan like me, if so, you need to check out Max B's music, he sounds just like Ja.
Advice?I am writing because I have seen some of your edits in the past on articles I've edited and your admin actions as well, so I thought you might be able to give me some advice on how to proceed on something. I won't try to argue the merits of my case, or even mention which article it concerns. I am just looking for advice on what steps to take. I have had a longstanding dispute with a community on a historical article. This is an article whose editors are largely made up of the ethnic origin that the page covers. (This is clear from their user pages and edit histories, it's not just intuition.) This results, in my opinion, in a general leaning toward portraying the subject other than with a neutral point of view. One piece of information is frequently pushed which is quite misleading and is positioned in a very prominent place, leading casual viewers to get a misleading perception of the subject. (I don't want to get more specific.) The page has been locked on several occasions for edit warring (of which I readily admit I am guilty.) I more recently tried to get the mediation cabal to look at it, in the hopes that they would and their opinion might create a status quo, but the cabal said no, as they feel it's unlikely that their opinion would be binding. I asked a fairly well known and highly placed editor what to do, and in his opinion I should just let it go, as there are mutiple users out to push this particular point of view in this article, and on the other side there is me. He said that it doesn't matter if the consensus is groupthink or in fact represents a "closed system," if you will, rather than a consensus arrived at by people with diverse views. I don't want to drag him into this, so I thought I'd ask another experienced admin. Is this in fact true? I see this as being a "2 + 2 = 5" situation -- something about which consensus should not really matter, as wrong is wrong. Do you agree? And if so, where do I take it from here? Any advice appreciated. Thanks in advance. Larry Dunn (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 6 month blockHi. Could you please explain why you felt that this IP address should be blocked for 6 months? On the face of it there seems to only be a handful of edits from the address over the past couple of years and only a few of them are disruptive, but I am sure there is probably more to it than I can see from the contributions. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Unprotect Raymond ChangHi there It's been protected for almost a year. Perhaps it's time to unprotect? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding your blocksObviously, we are all volunteers and any service to Misplaced Pages is appreciated. However, use of the administrative tools requires a willingness to explain your actions, particularly controversial ones. I have randomly flipped through your blocks and found several very questionable ones since your last edit on March 31. I would ask, as have others above, that you be willing to discuss your administrative actions. Misplaced Pages:BP#Reasons_and_notification states, "Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page unless they have a good reason not to. It is often easier to explain the reason for a block at the time than it is to explain a block well after the fact." Accordingly, if you continue to issue blocks without notifying the user on their talk page or explaining your actions here to users who ask, I will block your account. --B (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Request at WP:RfAR for your "without prejudice" desysoppingIt is with considerable regret that I would advise you that I have filed a Request per the above matter. I assure you that it was done with utmost concern for both yourself and the encyclopedia/community only, and I hope that you will return to contest the request/removal and to discuss your recent actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC) |