| Revision as of 21:29, 7 April 2014 view sourceWondering55 (talk | contribs)2,153 edits →Feedback on my request to be unblocked: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:36, 7 April 2014 view source DangerousPanda (talk | contribs)38,827 edits Reverted 1 edit by Wondering55 (talk): You're fortunate to no longer be blocked - as per my edit notice, I paid very close attention, and your statements are WP:NPA. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| Both auto and confirmed are basically the same, yet autoconfirmed are less likely to be taken seriously because anyone can be autoconfirmed just after ten edits. According to this: , ''"In some situations, it is necessary for accounts to be exempted from the customary confirmation period."'' It is unlikey that autoconfirmed will be taken seriously more than confirmed by users who think that their POV ideas are more important than a legit source. It may not help with newly registered users, but more likely veteran editors will take you seriously because an admin such as yourself has given that special authority to that particular user. -- ]]20:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) | Both auto and confirmed are basically the same, yet autoconfirmed are less likely to be taken seriously because anyone can be autoconfirmed just after ten edits. According to this: , ''"In some situations, it is necessary for accounts to be exempted from the customary confirmation period."'' It is unlikey that autoconfirmed will be taken seriously more than confirmed by users who think that their POV ideas are more important than a legit source. It may not help with newly registered users, but more likely veteran editors will take you seriously because an admin such as yourself has given that special authority to that particular user. -- ]]20:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Feedback on my request to be unblocked == | |||
| In my request of 14:51, 6 April 2014 to be unblocked due to violation of 3RR, which has already been removed due to expiration of the blocking time, I indicated at the beginning and at end of my request that: | |||
| * I understand the Misplaced Pages guideline 3RR that led me to being blocked | |||
| * I violated the 3RR guideline | |||
| * I would not violate the 3RR guideline again | |||
| * I would use the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution, if needed, rather than violate the 3RR rule | |||
| This met the basis for unblocking someone based on ]. | |||
| I also used majority of my request to highlight a better understanding of how I tried to work in good faith based on my Talk discussions with others and indicated what their responses were. | |||
| Rather than assume my good faith as per ], you then indicated that I clearly did not understand the 3RR guideline and wanted to blame others. Nowhere in my updated request did I blame anyone, except for myself, or present anything that indicated that I did not understand 3RR. Your claim is a violation of ]. | |||
| You indicated I spent the majority of my time disparaging others, which was simply not correct, as outlined above. I simply provided the circumstances that led to my violation of 3RR based on somewhat extensive and complex issues for 12 of my edits that I succinctly summarized. | |||
| You indicated that my updated request would not work because I repeated the same text from my first time. That was not accurate since my second request was half the length of my original, along with new and revised content. | |||
| My updated request, which I presented in clear concise bullet form and very short paragraph statements for easy reading and analysis, similar to what I am presenting to you now, was somehow modified so entire content was in one long wall of text, and you inaccurately stated: | |||
| “Repeating the same wall-o-text '''''' that was declined last time will not work.” | |||
| I am assuming that you were trying to be a good faith administrator, which can be difficult with the overwhelming number of time consuming appeal requests that need to be considered. | |||
| You did not seem to accept my good faith statements that I understood the 3RR policy, would not violate them again, and would use alternate Misplaced Pages approved means to resolve these matters. You did not seem to accept my explanations as to what occurred as simple good faith explanations of what I tried to do in good faith while indicating how others were involved. | |||
| It is always helpful to understand both sides. Otherwise, it is difficult to reach a fair decision. If someone is looking for reasons to deny someone, they will find it no matter what is stated. | |||
| Hopefully, you will find lessons learned here for your next administrator review. ] (]) 21:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:36, 7 April 2014
This user has opted out of talkbacks
| This is DangerousPanda's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 1 day  |
 | Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. |
Redmen44 AN3
Looks like you beat me to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Redmen44_reported_by_User:Flat_Out_.28Result:Not_blocked_.29. I was going to add the following before edit conflict with our edits:
Note Redmen44 was recently blocked 31h for warring on 6 March 2014.—Bagumba (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment That last 12:29 edit by Redmen44 contains the classic edit warring edit summary—verbose, and telling others to start a discussion: "Page is cited and there are multiple links that prove without a doubt that this is a living person. Please discuss further on talk page." This is followed by retaliating by posting a warning on the accusers page of edit warring. In light of this, Redmen's two previous unblock requests sound even more empty. —Bagumba (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Another situation like that won't be permitted, no matter what his excuse - it will be a long block for User:Redmen44 if he even dreams of edit-warring again. No need for AN3 reports, you can come straight to me. Those kind of games are wholly unacceptable - one either understands WP:BRD or one doesn't - it applies in all situations DP 14:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- At it again at Bo Ryan now, lots of reverts with "season not over" on edits by registered and IPs alike. This one will only play nice once reported and then start "gladly" having a discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Another situation like that won't be permitted, no matter what his excuse - it will be a long block for User:Redmen44 if he even dreams of edit-warring again. No need for AN3 reports, you can come straight to me. Those kind of games are wholly unacceptable - one either understands WP:BRD or one doesn't - it applies in all situations DP 14:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Betterthansuchasyou again
Thoughts on these edits? OhNoitsJamie 13:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Merlin the 2nd back with IP account
Merlin the 2nd is back to using his/her IP account User:50.98.103.127 - doing the exact same type of edits that got them banned in the first place. Was wondering if this is someting you can take care of? -- Moxy (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- WOW that was fast ....on a side note I have asked that Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada be locked up at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection -- Thank you !!! -- Moxy (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
Hello DangerousPanda, it looks like the topic banned user Reece Leonard has decided to create the sockpuppet account User: Mark2017, in order to support his side in the previous discussion, as that sentence has come under dispute again. I would make a SPI case, but I did not want to make it seem as if I am violating the interaction ban. STATic message me! 22:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- The sock is
Confirmed as Reece Leonard attempting to get around the topic ban. I've blocked the primary account for 72 hours and the sock indef.--Jezebel'sPonyo 23:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- TYVM Ponyo! ... I was just out digging through CU's that might be online :-) DP 23:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you, you are always quick on it Ponyo. STATic message me! 23:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- While we're at this, could someone also check Special:Contributions/Andthenwebecamenothing. Some of that users' edits aroused my suspicion a couple of weeks back. Their activity all seemed very Reece-like. Would be nice to get a concrete answer - one way or the other - now, instead of bringing this up, and possibly stinking up the discussion in September when Reece's topic ban would be up for appeal. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you, you are always quick on it Ponyo. STATic message me! 23:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- TYVM Ponyo! ... I was just out digging through CU's that might be online :-) DP 23:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Help
DangerousPanda, it's Goburst can you please review the University Canada West Talk page. I need to form a consensus because as of now it's me and another editor; this is not a consensus. Please, take a few minutes to see my referenced contributions and content on the University Canada West Talk page. I would appreciate if you could weigh in.
Thanks--Goburst (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello
Hi, can you delete a page, you deleted a user page with the same (mostly) content, its Ezekiel Pierre. Thanks, Reedman72 01:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedman72 (talk • contribs)
Confirmed situation request explained
Both auto and confirmed are basically the same, yet autoconfirmed are less likely to be taken seriously because anyone can be autoconfirmed just after ten edits. According to this: , "In some situations, it is necessary for accounts to be exempted from the customary confirmation period." It is unlikey that autoconfirmed will be taken seriously more than confirmed by users who think that their POV ideas are more important than a legit source. It may not help with newly registered users, but more likely veteran editors will take you seriously because an admin such as yourself has given that special authority to that particular user. -- ♣Jerm♣729 20:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)