User talk:69.105.172.180: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:42, 1 June 2009 editAnthony Bradbury (talk \| contribs)25,053 editsm Reverted edits by Trial by Sheriff (talk) to last version by 69.105.172.180← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:40, 1 June 2009 edit undoTrusilver (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers54,665 edits declinedNext edit →
Line 33:		Line 33:
	{{unblock reviewed\|1=I was not given sufficient warning before being blocked. I was given one warning which was originally for a different (incorrect) reason and was given no subsequent warnings including a final warning. I was not blocked for sufficient reason; I teased another user for a period of less than thirty minutes in a total of four comments on his talk page. No dispute resolution was involved, the user didn't explicitly ask me to stop posting comments and was responding to my comments. My actions do not meet ] criteria. After the other user's final response on my talk page, which was sarcastic (as were all of my comments), he apparently requested and received a page protection for "IPs Hounding". I pointed out the only IP was me and that this was a gross excessive use of page protection, and I '''''was blocked for harassment'''''. I feel this is a wholly unjustified block which Was preceded by a page protection which was also unnecessary Was unnecessary because of the page protection **Was implemented in response to my contesting the administrator's decision (the same administrator who administered the page protection BLOCKED ME when I contested the page protection. This seems like conflict of interest). It is not my objective to harm Misplaced Pages or harm or harass other users. I was having fun and being somewhat of an ass but it was intended as playful; I agree I deserved warnings but the block is excessive and is questionable in light of the other circumstances. I believe it is clear I have not demonstrated a pattern of malicious or consistently harmful behavior. \|decline=1) Warnings are not necessary for serious issues, such as harassment and the like. 2) If he told you to go away, continuing to do it is considered harassment, no questions asked. 3) The protection request was legitimate per ]. Declined. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 20:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)}}		{{unblock reviewed\|1=I was not given sufficient warning before being blocked. I was given one warning which was originally for a different (incorrect) reason and was given no subsequent warnings including a final warning. I was not blocked for sufficient reason; I teased another user for a period of less than thirty minutes in a total of four comments on his talk page. No dispute resolution was involved, the user didn't explicitly ask me to stop posting comments and was responding to my comments. My actions do not meet ] criteria. After the other user's final response on my talk page, which was sarcastic (as were all of my comments), he apparently requested and received a page protection for "IPs Hounding". I pointed out the only IP was me and that this was a gross excessive use of page protection, and I '''''was blocked for harassment'''''. I feel this is a wholly unjustified block which Was preceded by a page protection which was also unnecessary Was unnecessary because of the page protection **Was implemented in response to my contesting the administrator's decision (the same administrator who administered the page protection BLOCKED ME when I contested the page protection. This seems like conflict of interest). It is not my objective to harm Misplaced Pages or harm or harass other users. I was having fun and being somewhat of an ass but it was intended as playful; I agree I deserved warnings but the block is excessive and is questionable in light of the other circumstances. I believe it is clear I have not demonstrated a pattern of malicious or consistently harmful behavior. \|decline=1) Warnings are not necessary for serious issues, such as harassment and the like. 2) If he told you to go away, continuing to do it is considered harassment, no questions asked. 3) The protection request was legitimate per ]. Declined. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 20:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)}}

			{{unblock reviewed\|1=This is incorrect This was not an issue of serious harassment. Did you review the "harassment" in question at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Straight_Edge_PXK (section which was originally "help I don't pay attention")? Steps such as warnings and dispute resolution were neglected. The "harassment" took place over a period of less than thirty minutes in a total of four comments on one user page. There is no evidence of malicious intent or intent to disrupt another user's ability to edit A 7-day ban is completely excessive for teasing one editor for less than thirty minutes The user '''''did not ask me to go away''''' ] says that indefinite page protection is issued in response to '''''"heavy and persistent"''''' vandalism which was clearly not the case in these circumstances. The user requested protection in response to multiple IPs harassing him but there were not multiple IPs harassing him. ] says that: Page protection is applied when "There are regularly many new vandals". There was only one vandal, me. "Pages that are indefinitely semi-protected must have been semi-protected previously." The page was not previously semi-protected The block was issued after the PP which was unnecessary and designed to prevent me from involvement in RFP discussion. I was not harassing anyone at RFP, I was contesting the indefinite PP. *According to ], "Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." It is clear in this circumstance that the block has been isssued as a punishment (for disagreeing with an admin and contesting a PP?), as I have repeatedly stated I will not further harass the user.\|decline=Since you have been reading up so much on policy, why don't you take a look at ] Attempting to argue why everyone is wrong, including two admins who both thought you should be blocked, and you are right is generally not an often successful argument for getting unblocked. At this time, I declining your request. Most of your reasons for unblocking are irrelevant and combined with no reason to believe your behavior will change after being unblocked, and a threat of harassment made above, I have no reason whatsoever to unblock you. ] 16:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)}}
	{{unblock\|This is incorrect
	*This was not an issue of serious harassment. Did you review the "harassment" in question at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Straight_Edge_PXK (section which was originally "help I don't pay attention")? Steps such as warnings and dispute resolution were neglected. The "harassment" took place over a period of less than thirty minutes in a total of four comments on one user page.
	*There is no evidence of malicious intent or intent to disrupt another user's ability to edit
	*A 7-day ban is completely excessive for teasing one editor for less than thirty minutes
	*The user '''''did not ask me to go away'''''
	*] says that indefinite page protection is issued in response to '''''"heavy and persistent"''''' vandalism which was clearly not the case in these circumstances. The user requested protection in response to multiple IPs harassing him but there were not multiple IPs harassing him.
	**] says that:
	***Page protection is applied when "There are regularly many new vandals". There was only one vandal, me.
	***"Pages that are indefinitely semi-protected must have been semi-protected previously." The page was not previously semi-protected
	*The block was issued after the PP which was unnecessary and designed to prevent me from involvement in RFP discussion. I was not harassing anyone at RFP, I was contesting the indefinite PP.
	*According to ], "Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." It is clear in this circumstance that the block has been isssued as a punishment (for disagreeing with an admin and contesting a PP?), as I have repeatedly stated I will not further harass the user.}}

Revision as of 16:40, 1 June 2009

May 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to .460 S&W Magnum, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. HarlandQPitt (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

You might find that removing unencyclopedic content is fully in line with guidelines and you don't pay attention to what you're doing or notice when an edit summary is a joke. 69.105.172.180 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did with this edit to the page Talk:Desert Eagle. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. PXK /_C 16:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You will find that removing content that violates talk page guidelines is in fact constructive and fully in line with guidelines and you don't pay attention to what you're doing or notice when an edit summary is a joke. If you are confused, Misplaced Pages is not a forum. 69.105.172.180 (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I misread the boxes as you having put that information in. In the future, refrain from putting inaccurate or satirical edit summaries on your edits to avoid this easy misconception. You should also exercise civility and avoid the use of profanity on Misplaced Pages in the future. Thank You. HarlandQPitt (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Desert Eagle

That was an auto warning from Huggle, but if you don't want people to consider your edits unconstructive, don't type in all caps. PXK /_C 16:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe my all-caps edit summary was an auto-summary from Huggle. Who knows. 69.105.172.180 (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're removing a load of stuff from a talk page and have an edit summary in all caps that insults people, I think you can understand why i make the mistake of confusing it for unconstructiveness when I'm going through at a rate of 10 edits a minute on an auto edit program. PXK /_C 16:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, I really don't care. By the way, I would have rescinded the warning but the title of your message to me was a personal attack. PXK /_C 16:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Help I don't pay attenion" Yeah, not a personal attack at all. Oh, please insult me more, I don't mind being flamed at all. PXK /_C 17:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ryan Delaney 17:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This is ridiculous. I hope you have studied his user talk history and noticed his claims of harassment by multiple IPs are entirely fraudulent and the request for protection is completely unjustified. (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Next time, I suggest you leave well enough alone. You aren't helping by following him around everywhere. It creates the appearance that you have a personal vendetta. --Ryan Delaney 18:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am only trying to contest the page protection which is entirely ridiculous. Please look at the edit history for his user talk; there are NO anonymous IPs for months except for mine, his claims of getting harassed "all the time" and he's "sick of it" are not in keeping with Misplaced Pages policy; this is an entirely unjustified page protection and you are giving him special treatment and entitlement. I don't think banning was the proper procedure either since he did not actually request for me to stop talking to him and he continually replied to my silly comments. I wasn't even trying to harass him, I was trying to have a stupid conversation because I thought it was funny. I don't want you to unban this IP or care if you do, but please consider the admin response in this situation has been excessive. I think more warnings would have been appropriate (along with a "please leave me alone" instead of running straight to an admin) but more importantly the page protection is on completely false grounds. 69.105.172.180 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, I have been studying up on the blocking policies and guidelines and I feel you are fully in the wrong about this and furthermore are criticizing me without discussing the matter with me. Since I am sure you have overstepped and applied a block much too quickly for a very insignificant issue, I request now that you immediately unblock this account (with my express promise I will leave PXK alone) or I will log into my Misplaced Pages account and I will fight both your block and your page protection which were excessive with too little provocation. This would be a frustrating and possibly embarrassing process for one or both of us but I am ready to undergo the whole thing on principle because your block of this IP and your protection of PXKs user page are overstepping your rights as an admin and violating general policy. 69.105.172.180 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I would unblock you if you had only said you would leave him alone. But you threatened to harass me instead. Therefore I see no reason to unblock you, but if you want another administrator to review this block you can place the {{unblock}} template as I described above. --Ryan Delaney 18:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears I didn't read that clearly. Regardless, there is a difference between harassing you and contesting your decisions as an administrator and I intend to do the latter. 69.105.172.180 (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

For my own reference for later: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=293550611 69.105.172.180 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not given sufficient warning before being blocked. I was given one warning which was originally for a different (incorrect) reason and was given no subsequent warnings including a final warning. *I was not blocked for sufficient reason; I teased another user for a period of less than thirty minutes in a total of four comments on his talk page. No dispute resolution was involved, the user didn't explicitly ask me to stop posting comments and was responding to my comments. My actions do not meet WP:HA criteria. *After the other user's final response on my talk page, which was sarcastic (as were all of my comments), he apparently requested and received a page protection for "IPs Hounding". I pointed out the only IP was me and that this was a gross excessive use of page protection, and I was blocked for harassment. *I feel this is a wholly unjustified block which **Was preceded by a page protection which was also unnecessary **Was unnecessary because of the page protection **Was implemented in response to my contesting the administrator's decision (the same administrator who administered the page protection BLOCKED ME when I contested the page protection. This seems like conflict of interest). It is not my objective to harm Misplaced Pages or harm or harass other users. I was having fun and being somewhat of an ass but it was intended as playful; I agree I deserved warnings but the block is excessive and is questionable in light of the other circumstances. I believe it is clear I have not demonstrated a pattern of malicious or consistently harmful behavior.

Decline reason:

1) Warnings are not necessary for serious issues, such as harassment and the like. 2) If he told you to go away, continuing to do it is considered harassment, no questions asked. 3) The protection request was legitimate per WP:PP#semi-protection. Declined. -Jeremy 20:49, 31 May 2009 (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.

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

Request reason:

This is incorrect *This was not an issue of serious harassment. Did you review the "harassment" in question at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Straight_Edge_PXK (section which was originally "help I don't pay attention")? Steps such as warnings and dispute resolution were neglected. The "harassment" took place over a period of less than thirty minutes in a total of four comments on one user page. *There is no evidence of malicious intent or intent to disrupt another user's ability to edit *A 7-day ban is completely excessive for teasing one editor for less than thirty minutes *The user did not ask me to go away *WP:PP says that indefinite page protection is issued in response to "heavy and persistent" vandalism which was clearly not the case in these circumstances. The user requested protection in response to multiple IPs harassing him but there were not multiple IPs harassing him. **Misplaced Pages:Rough guide to semi-protection says that: ***Page protection is applied when "There are regularly many new vandals". There was only one vandal, me. ***"Pages that are indefinitely semi-protected must have been semi-protected previously." The page was not previously semi-protected *The block was issued after the PP which was unnecessary and designed to prevent me from involvement in RFP discussion. I was not harassing anyone at RFP, I was contesting the indefinite PP. *According to WP:PA, "Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." It is clear in this circumstance that the block has been isssued as a punishment (for disagreeing with an admin and contesting a PP?), as I have repeatedly stated I will not further harass the user.

Decline reason:

Since you have been reading up so much on policy, why don't you take a look at Wikilawyering. Attempting to argue why everyone is wrong, including two admins who both thought you should be blocked, and you are right is generally not an often successful argument for getting unblocked. At this time, I declining your request. Most of your reasons for unblocking are irrelevant and combined with no reason to believe your behavior will change after being unblocked, and a threat of harassment made above, I have no reason whatsoever to unblock you. Trusilver 16:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)