| Revision as of 15:32, 23 November 2018 view source81.157.115.189 (talk) Undid revision 870259066 by Ritchie333 (talk)Tags: Replaced Undo← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:32, 23 November 2018 view source Ritchie333 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators125,314 edits Undid revision 870259257 by 81.157.115.189 (talk) rvvTag: UndoNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{retired}} | {{retired}} | ||
| {{yo|Jauerback|Ritchie333|Winged Blades of Godric}} Thanks! I needed an excuse. Bye! ] ] 11:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Are you going to return? You're a great editor. '''―] ]''' 12:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Just saying == | |||
| Hey, Jim. Take a break and revisit your decision. Ping me if you need to vent. ]] 16:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Agree, your anti-vandal efforts are highly valued by a number of editors including me, regards ] (]) 18:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ], you blocked Jim for ]. Why? Surely, his reverting was justified. He's a patroller. ] does have exemptions. And regardless, ] should also be considered, as it was in case where ] semi-protected an article after I repeatedly reverted an IP who continued to add unsourced material after I advised the IP to stop and with the IP having no intent to discuss, and after I requested at ] that the article be semi-protected. That is not a case where I should have been blocked. Jim is a very valuable patroller. He often takes the time to address problematic concerns. He doesn't blindly revert. ] (]) 19:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *See ] and make of it what you want... - '''Tom''' | ] ] 19:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| **Hum. Sad to see you blocked. Hope you can take some of the feed back on board and return to productive editing. ] (] · ] · ]) 07:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *Props to WBG for voicing out in an attempt to stop the ] but Jim is an experienced editor who has been reverting vandalism for over 7 years and blocking him isn't the best way to resolve things. Sure, he screwed up this one by edit warring but the block was too harsh because he was only "removing unsourced content" and the new user kept testing his patience. Please unblock him and let it be done. <u style="font:1.1em/1em Arial Black">]<u style="color:#bfa6d8"><small>with them </small></u>]</u> 08:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblocked == | |||
| Hi Jim1138, I've unblocked you because this situation spiraled out of control a little, and I'm hoping it gets back on track. I'll unblock both of you, and maybe we can reboot. While I'm not sure a block was needed here, in this case I think reverting was too much; newbies need a little room to learn, and in the end they were providing a source in their edit summary. Hope you either come back right away, or take some time off, whichever works out best for you, but you're valued here by many people, so I'm hoping you come back eventually. --] (]) 17:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Note for people watching: This isn't a rogue unblock, the blocking admin said somewhere (I think on Ritchie's talk page) that someone could unblock if they thought it best. --] (]) 17:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *{{U|Jauerback}} noted on Ritchie's talk page they'd be fine with an unblock if it was deemed to harsh for a newbie, so that would be the ''other'' editor, but fair's fair, and I certainly agree with the unblock. I think Jauerback, whom I know as eminently reasonable and collegial, agrees. Thanks Floq. Jim, hope to see you here again. If not: thanks for the work you've done for our beautiful project, and fare thee well. ] (]) 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: ...oh... I misread that a little, sorry. I guess it was a rogue unblock after all. Wasn't intended to be. --] (]) 18:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::"]."-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|Ponyo}} great quote. Jim, hope you come back. I'm one of the ones who value you. ] ] 18:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Even if somebody did think it was a rogue unblock (I don't), it's got consensus now so it couldn't be anyway. To be honest, I expected to have a conversation about ten minutes after the block along the lines of "Hey, I got carried away, can be unblocked?" "Sure, unblocked. As you were", which I think happened last time. | |||
| Jim, I think there's a pretty broad consensus you do a very important job for the project. I have seen first hand some of the really nasty vandalism that's been cropping up recently, and seen you getting to it quickly and without fuss. I think there's a general feeling that we all want you to stay. Would you reconsider? ] ] ] 20:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:32, 23 November 2018
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.@Jauerback, Ritchie333, and Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks! I needed an excuse. Bye! Jim1138 talk 11:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Are you going to return? You're a great editor. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Just saying
Hey, Jim. Take a break and revisit your decision. Ping me if you need to vent. Tiderolls 16:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree, your anti-vandal efforts are highly valued by a number of editors including me, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Jauerback, you blocked Jim for WP:3RR. Why? Surely, his reverting was justified. He's a patroller. WP:3RR does have exemptions. And regardless, WP:Common sense should also be considered, as it was in this case where Fish and karate semi-protected an article after I repeatedly reverted an IP who continued to add unsourced material after I advised the IP to stop and with the IP having no intent to discuss, and after I requested at WP:Requests for page protection that the article be semi-protected. That is not a case where I should have been blocked. Jim is a very valuable patroller. He often takes the time to address problematic concerns. He doesn't blindly revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- See User talk:Ritchie333#MMORPG and make of it what you want... - Tom | Thomas.W 19:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hum. Sad to see you blocked. Hope you can take some of the feed back on board and return to productive editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Props to WBG for voicing out in an attempt to stop the bias against new editors but Jim is an experienced editor who has been reverting vandalism for over 7 years and blocking him isn't the best way to resolve things. Sure, he screwed up this one by edit warring but the block was too harsh because he was only "removing unsourced content" and the new user kept testing his patience. Please unblock him and let it be done. Flooded with them hundreds 08:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Unblocked
Hi Jim1138, I've unblocked you because this situation spiraled out of control a little, and I'm hoping it gets back on track. I'll unblock both of you, and maybe we can reboot. While I'm not sure a block was needed here, in this case I think reverting was too much; newbies need a little room to learn, and in the end they were providing a source in their edit summary. Hope you either come back right away, or take some time off, whichever works out best for you, but you're valued here by many people, so I'm hoping you come back eventually. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Note for people watching: This isn't a rogue unblock, the blocking admin said somewhere (I think on Ritchie's talk page) that someone could unblock if they thought it best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Jauerback noted on Ritchie's talk page they'd be fine with an unblock if it was deemed to harsh for a newbie, so that would be the other editor, but fair's fair, and I certainly agree with the unblock. I think Jauerback, whom I know as eminently reasonable and collegial, agrees. Thanks Floq. Jim, hope to see you here again. If not: thanks for the work you've done for our beautiful project, and fare thee well. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- ...oh... I misread that a little, sorry. I guess it was a rogue unblock after all. Wasn't intended to be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- "You cannot do a kindness too soon, for you never know how soon it will be too late."-- Jezebel's Ponyo 18:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Ponyo: great quote. Jim, hope you come back. I'm one of the ones who value you. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- "You cannot do a kindness too soon, for you never know how soon it will be too late."-- Jezebel's Ponyo 18:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- ...oh... I misread that a little, sorry. I guess it was a rogue unblock after all. Wasn't intended to be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Even if somebody did think it was a rogue unblock (I don't), it's got consensus now so it couldn't be anyway. To be honest, I expected to have a conversation about ten minutes after the block along the lines of "Hey, I got carried away, can be unblocked?" "Sure, unblocked. As you were", which I think happened last time.
Jim, I think there's a pretty broad consensus you do a very important job for the project. I have seen first hand some of the really nasty vandalism that's been cropping up recently, and seen you getting to it quickly and without fuss. I think there's a general feeling that we all want you to stay. Would you reconsider? Ritchie333 20:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)