Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is a topical archive of past discussions from the current talk page for the topic:
"Punitive Block". In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the current talk page page. If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the current talk page page and then add your comments there. |
Permanent link: . Permanent link of WP:AN3 report: , WP:ANI: .
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
TopGun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was the one who unilaterally stopped the editwar without going or intending to break 3RR or other wise wikilawyer around it. The consensus on the discussion was in my favour even after that, with my efforts to not escalate the edit war and instead report at the notice board, the block action against me seems to be unreasonable and at its best for something I haven't done (even if assumed to be my mistake, the block seems to be punitive because I already explained in my report that I did not intend to take any action by my self). lTopGunl (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were edit-warring - and the mere fact that you were not the last one to participate doesn't change that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2011 (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.
"During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection." << is exactly what I did and got blocked for it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
TopGun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do want another last review of the facts that I stated above and even if that is still considered right, this report which I made at WP:AN3 stating that I will not revert again should be taken as proof that I did not intend to continue it (even if you declare that I actually was editwarring which I contested above and this should be taken as a reply to the above review decision as well). So the block on me is by no means a 'preventive' block nor has it been made clear to me on how it will prevent me from something I already mentioned, before even knowing I'd get blocked, that I wasn't going to do. Another point to note is that the other user is now reverted again by one of the neutral participants of the discussion since he was adding content against the consensus just after reaching it. The reviewing admin should also check the consensus at WP:NPOVN#Taliban to see who was being disruptive here. So I just followed revert, warn and report. There was no chance of further discussing this as a consensus had already been reached on the NPOV notice board. The block was an indiscriminating one to an editor who reverted per admin closed consensus and to one who was violating it. This is highly discouraging and only sends the message that if you report a disruptive editor you will get an equal punitive ban for reverting him (or go through the fallacy that he did not violate 3RR - which I previously have faced one AN3 - since I didn't revert him that many times)? lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Most of that is a rather long winded way of saying that you think that you were right to edit war. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2011 (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.
TopGun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Completely Punitive block since I stopped the editwar unilaterally (with the other editor making top on edits). Refer to the comment and discussion above. I pointed out that I wasn't going to make any edits before I was given a surprise block myself for reporting a contentious editor. There is no explanation on how I'm being prevented from 'doing any damage' and this also violates WP:COOLDOWN. The reasons given for declining above two unblock requests cover only the first part of my appeal, is it being ignored repeatedly? Because I see no response when ever I raise the point of the block being punitive. The blocking editor has explained in his comment that I was too late when I reported. That makes it even more in the punitive category. I've still not been given any explanation even after unblock requests on how this block is preventive. lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Accept reason:
TopGun -
I've blocked you 72 hours for edit warring. I see no other way to go about this. Even if the other editors were treating you with bad faith, the revert warring on your part is still enough to constitute disruption. While I do think that Darkness Shines has taken the wrong attitude towards mediation with you, that does not condone the edit warring.
I hope this will help you decide in the future that edit warring is not OK, and that, no matter how unfair it is, it is better to engage in discussion or mediation, and let the other side sit with egg on its face, not you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
{{Unblock on hold | 2=Magog the Ogre | 3=I reverted him twice for removing an article from the see also list which was not even deleted yet (and he was claiming there's no such thing as that while that list is for existing articles). I even let him be in the end (didn't revert him while I was still contributing to other articles)... backing out of a two revert editwar gets me a block? Really? He has purposely hounded me to every article I've ever edited. I've provided 15-20 diffs on Magog's talk page and can provide more than that. This was intentional on part of Darkness Shines, and given that I decided not to revert, I should not have been blocked since it doesn't prevent me from doing some thing I backed out from. Magog you need to check the time of his revert and my contributions list. I actually have engaged in mediation with DS... but let me show you what personal attacks he made there (after adding a 'disagree' to the mediator's terms). . Also note the comments out side the template. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC) | 3=On the face of it, what you say seems to be true. However, I will consult Magog the Ogre to see whether there are circumstances I am not aware of which make sense of the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)}}
{{adminhelp}}
{{unblock|Request above... the reviewing admin forgot?!?! --lTopGunl (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)}} {{adminhelp}}
In a recent post to my talk page you ask if the block would have been lifted if it had not been left until it expired. I think the reason given for the block was not good, but it looks to me as though, taking the relevant editing history into account as a whole, there may have been good reasons for a block. In fact, on User talk:Magog the Ogre you wrote that Magog "Should have found a better excuse for blocking me than a non imposed 1RR", and what I am suggesting is that he/she perhaps could have done so. I invited Magog the Ogre to say whether there was anything in the history which justified the block, and he/she did not, in my opinion, make a convincing case. It does look to me as though there may in fact have been justification for the block, which I might have found had I been prepared to spend a long enough time reading all of the history. However, I was not, and still am not, willing to spend an inordinate amount of time doing that when there are others who already have enough knowledge of the situation, and could have pointed me directly to the relevant bits of the history. In that situation, I would have felt it my duty to give you the benefit of any doubt, and would have lifted the block on you, had I come back before the block expired. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)TopGun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have not been under any 1RR restriction for which I'm being blocked. The blocking administrator told me not to game Darkness Shines into an edit war (who was under a 1RR restriction agreed on his unblock). I clarified to Bwilkins (the blocking admin) that I didn't intend to game DS in to an edit war and gave adequate reasons for it (other users were in disagreement with him where he edited in that case). I also told Bwilkins that he did not have the authority to impose a 1RR as an administrator which is imposed either by community or by Arbcom. This is a bad block (My previous two blocks were for making a second edit was well - the second one was even clarified by the reviewing administrator to be unjustified but he didn't remember to lift it before it was expired). Bwilkins has rejected two previous ANI reports from me about rude IPs or editors as well with putting all the blame on me where I had been civil. This is a completely prejudiced block for what so ever reasons Bwilkins has. Also note that this report was made by DS on AN3 soon after he got reported for his own violations which even Bwilkins acknowledged. He has again violated his 1RR at Pak Watan where I reverted only once. Even on the article I am blocked for, Inter-Services Intelligence, both my reverts were not against DS (one revert to an IP who copy pasted content and another to a different user). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It was reasonable to assume that the 1RR restriction only applies to your interaction with User:Darkness Shines. The 1RR restriction was made because your interaction belied a battleground mentality. For the record, it applies to all reverts that you both edit that aren't obvious vandalism. As it stands, I see no indication that you understand why the 1RR restriction was made; and given the discussion below, I have no confidence that you would have acted much differently in the unblock discussion were this a 1RR violation against Darkness Shines (i.e., you twice reverted his/her edits). I encourage you to consider BWilkins advice below. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2012 (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.
That said, if you thought that Bwilkins had no right to impose a revert restriction on you, in my opinion, the reasonable course of action would have been to raise the issue on WP:AN, so that the community could overrule him. Of course, this was risky, as the community could have upheld the restriction or even imposed a "full-fledged" 1-rr on you... You chose to test your restriction, instead, – at least, that's how it looks like to an external observer – forcing Bwilkins to block you... Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
TopGun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Some inconsistency in last request denied. Reviewer says, "It was reasonable to assume that the 1RR restriction only applies to your interaction with User:Darkness Shines." And then both reverts were not against DS. Secondly, he is talking about 1RR but didn't explain that an administrator can make that. I've made it clear that the blocking admin showed me no policy of whether he can impose such restriction on me... it was completely reasonable to assume such sanction as bogus. There are some things that are required for blocking. WP:EXPLAINBLOCK is one of them. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
If you believe that Darkness shines and/or JCAla are still presenting a problem in this area, I recommend filing an RFC. It's quite clear that complaining to administrators and noticeboards is not going to get the job done, for anyone involved. I would be happy to sign an RFC with you, if you have the patience, provided that I agree with everything you state on it, which is a big if.
If Darkness Shines and JCAla are watching this page (which they will be at some point, I'm sure), then I recommend the same thing, and in reverse.
If all of that fails, we can try ArbCom again. And perhaps I will be censured for making bad blocks of JCAla and TopGun and Darkness Shines, but more likely arbcom would be forced to come up with a solution no one likes. I seriously recommend some RFC'ing, and not just jumping into "the other party hates me and makes my time unworkable." In an RFC, with diffs and links, we can hopefully see what is really disruption on the other side's part (as you assert), and what is POV pushing on your part (as they assert). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.