User talk:Rebroad: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:09, 27 March 2007

Welcome!

New Comments Go At the Bottom

Old stuff moved to User talk:Rebroad/Archive 2 --Rebroad 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recent edits, and your AN/I

I have looked over your comment, and the pages in question. I responded at AN/I, and would appreciate you looking in on things. I also notice that durign this process, you've elected to archive your entire talk. While it's your right to archive regularly, I would suggest that in the future, you NOT move entire conversations between you and an editor who you're bringing to AN/I. It looks like you're trying to hide something. As I said a couple hours ago on AN/I, it looks like she's right about things. please return to AN/I for more discussions. ThuranX 17:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose of replacing them is so that during an ongoing problem, OTHER editors can see what the history of the dispute was, without digging through page's history, switching to the archive, then running through a long set of diffs, as you have made me, and no doubt, others do. What you did was NOT what my user talk note refers to. Look through my history. I've deleted recently, in fact, some hostile commentary from editors who can't AGF and work on a problem. My actual warnings and such are pretty much intact. My archives still hold such things, including my blocks. I remove stuff that goes like 'screw you, i'm smart and your wrong so go away and dont come here', not 3rr warning templates and such. Your removal of such obfuscates the situation. As I said above, doing such makes you look combative, resistant to being warned, and probably guilty of whatever the warning was about. Try to avoid it. ThuranX 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And since you thoroughly misunderstand the warning, I DO in fact mind your copying it. ThuranX 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Jersey Devil 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Firstly, I received no warnings regarding my alleged breach of WP:POINT, nor WP:CIVIL. As per blocking policy, I would normally expect to receive warnings based on these guidelines at least before receiving a block. Background info: The warnings I gave were given to a user who had repeated left unwarranted uw-delete warnings on my talk page, despite my repeated explanations that I had not deleted any content (as it was all merged into the merging article), so there were very valid reasons to give them. Also, I understood blocking is not supposed to be used as a punative measure. Considering the warnings I had given Miss Mondegreen were several days ago, and I already said I considered I have made my point, I do not see how this block can be considered a preventative measure.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline per changed reasons below. — ²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

WP:POINT vote showing my support for this guideline.

To any reviewing administrator: I withdraw my claims of sockpuppetry per below, so if you decline his request for unblocking, please reset his block to the original reason and 24 hours minus time served. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request the reducing of Flunkybiscuits block to whatever Rebroad's block is determined to be. Flunkybiscuits first edit was to Cloud, and the edit Flunkybiscuit made was to wikify the term Nephology, which appears in the first paragraph. Flunkybiscuits then went to Nephology and made only minor formatting edits, which due to an edit conflict where I added more content/removed content where the new formatting was, the edits weren't kept anyway. There's no way at this point to determine definitely that this is in fact a sockpuppet, and the first edit on the account is on the 25th. Also, I've been encouraging/asking/begging Rebroad to add to the Nephology page, so I don't understand the need for a sockpuppet for that. Sockpuppets are allowed as long as they don't do any harm or avoid blocks, and since this isn't a definitive puppet, and hasn't done any harm, I'm requesting that the block be reduced to Rebroad's block time, in compliance with WP:AGF and WP:BITE. And wherever the policy page on puppets is. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 10:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I got pwned there. Does no edit conflict appear if we each choose edit section instead of edit page? Miss Mondegreen | Talk 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Mondegreen's logic, yet again, beggers belief. On one hand she refers to WP:BITE whilst at the same time suggesting a block on a new user purely because... well, I can't even work out what the justification is. This is becomming extremely tiresome, and is yet another assumption of bad faith. --Rebroad 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the times on the edits. I was suggesting that Flunkybiscuits block be reduced at a time when it was an indefinite block and the account considered a sockpuppet. Since the account was considered to be a sockpuppet at the time, I requested a reduced sentence for it since sockpuppets are allowed as long as they aren't used to negatively edit in various ways. (See Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry ) I was confirming that the sockpuppet had not been editing negatively in any way, and if it was still considered a puppet, then it only needed to be blocked to prevent you from avoiding a block. I was not assuming bad faith, or biting new users, in fact, I was doing the opposite. I'm pleased to know that this user is not considered a sockpuppet, as I thought the evidence was shaky. Sockpuppets generally reveal themselves anyway, so I dislike harsh actions on maybes, becuase if it is just conincidence, and they do happen, it's a pretty bad way for a newbie to be treated. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 11:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miss Mondegreen. Thank you for your reply. Please look at it from my point of view. Your suggestion effectively says that you consider there should be a block - i.e. you do not propose an unblock of Flunkybiscuits. This is what I mean by an assumption of bad faith - you are assuming that there is sock puppetry - why else would you not propose an unblock? Why propose keeping a new user blocked who has done nothing wrong? --Rebroad 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I would like to say thanks for at least pointing out the lack of evidence of sockpuppetry - (still don't understand why you proposed a reduction in time rather than an unblock. After all, it would be easy to re-block Flunkybiscuits if it was found I was using her account.) --Rebroad 21:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a reduced block isn't propsing blocking a user, or even keeping a user blocked. I'll explain.

First--I don't know much about IPs, etc, so I couldn't respond there. I could respond in re the edits and I did.

Second, I could keep this user from being labelled a sockpuppet and being indef blocked--I could take it up a level if I had to, because in this case, an indef block would be a violation of wiki policy. Assuming the worst, second accounts are still allowed and this was as clean a second account as you could get.

What I could say, I did. I commented on the edits. I said I thought the evidence was shaky. I said it made no sense for you to get a sockpuppet to edit Nephology, I wanted you to work on the article. I explained that the edits weren't negative in any way at all including sockpuppet ways. At the time, Flunkybiscuits has three edits. All wikification and formatting ones, none after your block. So, even if this was your account, you weren't using the account for a nefarious purpose or evading a block, so your block would have been reduced and both accounts would have only had the remainder of a 24hr block. While bad if Flunkybiscuits belonged to someone else, it's much less bad than an indef-block, and I've seen accounts I don't think were sockpuppets get indef blocked the first day of existence and that's that. I had no evidence other than edits to argue innocence, and I provided evidence about the edits--that was all I could do.

What it came down to, was I knew that I could help the user get rid of the indef block, whether or not that account was a sockpuppet. I had no idea whether or not the account was a sockpuppet, and even AGF, I had no idea if I could argue or prove innocence, or get an admin to agree to unblock pending proof of sockpuppetry.

Btw, since I'm beginning to acquire a history of defending sockpuppets because I think that certain admins and editors lose the AGF clause as soon as they hear the word sockpuppet, it would have been a stupid thing to do and it might have hurt more than it helped.

It would also be nice if you could look around you and appreciate the good things that people do do, and not always see the things that you think they could have or should have done better.

I do appreciate that you've made an effort at returning to dialogue btw. I've also spoken with Flunkybiscuits, and commented on her talk page, and everything seems to be ok there. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 09:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mondegreen

She was trolling on the AN page. See posts titled Runedchozo. If you can provide evidence post at WP:AN/I. G e o. Talk to me 06:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Flunkybiscuits

Can you explain why your friend (as you claim) started editing at Nephology as her second article -- an article that you are currently in an editing dispute over? The timing of your friend's appearance is highly suspicious in my mind. -- Netsnipe ► 10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually told her not to bother since I was going to raise it as a candidate for deletion, but she was determined to expand it, seemly siding with Miss Mondegreen! It's rather ironic that Miss Mondegreen then undid her edits, so I'm not quite sure who's side she's on now! As you can see Flunkybiscuits created her account before I was blocked, so it certainly wasn't an effort to bypass a block. Regards, --Rebroad 10:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that I was rather frustrated by Miss Mondegreen's recent victimisation towards me, and obviously I shared these concerns with the person I live with (aka Flunkybiscuits). It's not too surprising that this was the catalyst to Flunkybiscuits finally biting the biscuit (no pun intended) and creating her own wikipedia account - to see what all the fuss is about! --Rebroad 10:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(she was already reading wikipedia, she just never had any desire to edit it before yesterday). --Rebroad 10:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with your explanation regarding Flunkybiscuits and have now unblocked her. I'm just about to head home from university so unfortunately I won't be able to review your original block in depth for another 2 hours, but hopefully someone else will get to you before I get home. -- Netsnipe ► 10:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT - misinterpreation of the guideline

Warnings are not pointless, blocks are not pointless. Does this mean all warnings and blocks should be banned as per WP:POINT? The warnings I gave for ignoring WP:AGP and WP:CIVIL of course are made to make a point - point being - "Don't continue doing it". Does WP:POINT effectively tie people's hands from issuing warnings? --Rebroad 11:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blocked for sockpuppetry

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, for some reason I still seem to be blocked, despite the accusation of sockpuppetry being lifted. Please could someone process the unblock? Many thanks.

Decline reason:

I have adjusted the block back to the original time. No prejudice as to whether this user should remain blocked or unblock. Procedural adjust and decline. Original reason was WP:POINT violations as alleged by Jersey Devil. — ²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wikipedia:Don't_be_a_fanatic - nice piece of advice... --Rebroad 20:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

feeling surprisingly calm

Having looked at Miss Mondegreen's edits regarding Person and Nephology I can honestly say that she does seem well intentioned, and I would like to apologise that I got a bit hot under the collar during some of my discussion with her. My listing of things she said that made me feel like I was being attacked were in themselves not supposed to make Miss Mondegreen feel attacked in return. I understand it's difficult to say one is feeling attacked without the accused attacker feeling attacked by that having been said. --Rebroad 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't worry

Hi Miss Mondegreen. Regarding this, no need to worry - I personally think a 6 month ban is way out of the question as was surprised by the suggestion so just wanted to see why it was suggested given that I hadn't seen any evidence of it being warranted. I do think that you could be more careful to warn people without getting them annoyed to the point of being uncivil. It takes a lot to make me get as annoyed as I did recently following your initial warning to my talk page, and your method of re-posting the warnings following my deleting them was especially annoying. Given that the deletion of a warning from a user's talk page constitutes confirmation that they have received the warning (according to the policy I read recently) I do think it's unnecessary to keep re-issuing them after each deletion, especially when the user has explained their reasons for disagreeing with the warning. I also think you should be more careful not to issue uw-delete warnings when it's not clear content has been deleted, and especially don't jump in at a uw-delete3 or a uw-move3 when bad faith is not obvious, as it was not in my case. I do not propose to keep a close eye on you for fear of being accused of stalking you, but if I do see you issuing warnings assuming bad faith without good reason I reserve the right to let you or someone else have my opinion on the matter. --Rebroad 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 :::::Hi Miss Mondegreen. Thank you for your reply. Please look at it from my point of view. Your suggestion effectively says that you consider there should be a block - i.e. you do not propose an unblock of Flunkybiscuits. This is what I mean by an assumption of bad faith - you are assuming that there is sock puppetry - why else would you not propose an unblock? Why propose keeping a new user blocked who has done nothing wrong? --[[User:Rebroad|Rebroad]] 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 :::::However, I would like to say thanks for at least pointing out the lack of evidence of sockpuppetry - (still don't understand why you proposed a reduction in time rather than an unblock. After all, it would be easy to re-block Flunkybiscuits if it was found I was using her account.) --[[User:Rebroad|Rebroad]] 21:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
+::::::Proposing a reduced block isn't propsing blocking a user, or even keeping a user blocked.  I'll explain.
+::::::First--I don't know much about IPs, etc, so I couldn't respond there.  I could respond in re the edits and I did.
+::::::Second, I could keep this user from being labelled a sockpuppet and being indef blocked--I could take it up a level if I had to, because in this case, an indef block would be a violation of wiki policy.  Assuming the worst, second accounts are still allowed and this was as clean a second account as you could get.
+::::::What I could say, I did. I commented on the edits.  I said I thought the evidence was shaky. I said it made no sense for you to get a sockpuppet to edit Nephology, I wanted you to work on the article. I explained that the edits weren't negative in any way at all including sockpuppet ways.  At the time, Flunkybiscuits has three edits.  All wikification and formatting ones, none after your block.  So, even if this was your account, you weren't using the account for a nefarious purpose or evading a block, so your block would have been reduced and both accounts would have only had the remainder of a 24hr block.  While bad if Flunkybiscuits belonged to someone else, it's much less bad than an indef-block, and I've seen accounts I don't think were sockpuppets get indef blocked the first day of existence and that's that.  I had no evidence other than edits to argue innocence, and I provided evidence about the edits--that was all I could do.
+::::::What it came down to, was I knew that I could help the user get rid of the indef block, whether or not that account was a sockpuppet.  I had no idea whether or not the account was a sockpuppet, and even AGF, I had no idea if I could argue or prove innocence, or get an admin to agree to unblock pending proof of sockpuppetry.
+::::::Btw, since I'm beginning to acquire a history of defending sockpuppets because I think that certain admins and editors lose the AGF clause as soon as they hear the word sockpuppet, it would have been a stupid thing to do and it might have hurt more than it helped.
+::::::It would also be nice if you could look around you and appreciate the good things that people do do, and not always see the things that you think they could have or should have done better.
+::::::I do appreciate that you've made an effort at returning to dialogue btw.  I've also spoken with Flunkybiscuits, and commented on her talk page, and everything seems to be ok there.  '''[[User:Miss Mondegreen|Miss Mondegreen]] | [[User talk:Miss Mondegreen|Talk]] &nbsp; 09:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)'''
 == Mondegreen ==