User talk:69.105.172.180

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

May 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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)

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, 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 T /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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia in the future. Thank You. HarlandQPitt (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Desert Eagle[edit]

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 T /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 T /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 T /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 T /C 17:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia'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. causa sui talk 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. --causa sui talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. --causa sui talk 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=293550611 69.105.172.180 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

69.105.172.180 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


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 Wikipedia 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 (v^_^v Cardmaker) 20:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

69.105.172.180 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


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/wiki/User_talk:Straight_Edge_PXK (section [Personal Attack Removed] 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. **Wikipedia: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)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

69.105.172.180 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Since you cite wikilawyering, which is an essay and does not automatically trump guidelines, I will point out the essay says "And simply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer; remember that Wikipedia has an Arbitration Committee closely modelled on a court of law, a system of elections of administrators and bureaucrats". I am not trying to twist or abuse guidelines and policies to "win arguments" or harm Wikipedia, I want to be unblocked so that I may continue editing in addition to questioning Ryan's behavior as an administrator through the proper channels. According to Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct, "editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions". That is what I am doing here. An unjustly applied block is an unjustly applied block and my reasons are relevant. Additionally, according to Wikipedia:BP#Duration_of_blocks, a block for disruptive editing should generally be 24 hours, and longer for successsive violations. 7 days is not 24 hours. Arguing with admin decisions is not against policy. I have clearly repeatedly stated that I will stop "harassing" any users except that I will challenge Ryan's decisions as an administrator, which I can do without harassment or violating rules at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges. It is clear from my contributions that I am generally a constructive and contributive member.

Decline reason:

You express above that you intend to dodge this block by using a registered account. I find that an admission that you wish to dodge this block if you do not get your way, and as such, I do not feel that unblocking at this time would be appropriate.Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

You are attempting to silence someone because he challenges administrator decisions. Your latest "reasons" don't even make sense. I will not be silenced because I am not an administrator and my opinion is somehow invalid. I have not demonstrated intent to vandalize or harm Wikipedia; I wish to follow due procedure and apparently everyone is afraid of this. 69.105.172.180 (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock[edit]

I will unblock you, under the following conditions:

  1. Don't attempt to enforce user conduct policies. Removing content from talk pages that may violate WP:NOT might not be the best course of action to take all the time, and it might be better to leave this to others.
  2. Don't evade blocks. Ever.
  3. Remember to remain cool when editing. Other editors are bound to be wrong sometimes, you are bound to be wrong sometimes. Treat those who you believe as wrong the way you want them to respond to your telling them you believe they are wrong.
  4. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and understand them. You likely won't get any warnings for this.

Do we have a deal? Prodego talk 06:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As per the first condition, the problem was not removing content from talk pages, it was my stupid edit summary. I would prefer point be modified to something regarding offensive, frivilous, silly, or otherwise unconstructive edit summaries, as I believe there is no inherent problem in removing off-topic text that violates WP:NOT (the text I removed that started this whole problem was a guy joking about his headshot/crate-penetration performance with the Desert Eagle (reference to Counter-Strike), several members participated before one pointed out that the discussion was not really acceptable).
As per the second point, as I have stated I was more concerned with the motives and administrator decisions behind the block than the block itself; as you are aware I only violated the block to post the comment on Mr. Wales' user talk as I felt administrators were trying to sweep my concerns under the table. I feel this is a difficult point because I still feel this block was entirely excessive use of force/punishment and I might react the same way in a similar circumstance in the future. I have never been blocked before in over three years of editing. If I felt the block was just or warranted I certainly would not have put up a fuss about it (you can see this from my original comments, I was only concerned about the page protection until I realized how excessive the block was); even a 24-hour ban in this situation would not have inspired me to take any action. So, I can promise that barring extreme circumstances such as these I would certainly not evade a block.
It is important to point out that I still feel that Ryan abused his powers as an administrator in multiple ways and upon being unblocked I will promptly request a review of his actions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges. I feel that other administrators similarly attempted to stifle my complains about administrator misconduct but they may not have fully understood the situation and I am primarily conncerned with Ryan.
In any case I will try to remain cool and study Civil. I have already read NPA carefully which is why I believe that my ban was applied frivolously and excessively.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my words instead of outright dismissing everything. 69.105.172.180 (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I've unblocked you, but I expect you to follow that first point, I think it would be better if you avoid enforcing WP:NOT. removing the comments of other people is a drastic action, and should not be undertaken without good reason. A bit of off-topic discussion is sometimes better than removing people's comments outright. I would not have removed those comments, although I agree they are not specifically topical to Wikipedia. I really have no comment on Ryan's actions, I don't see anything inappropriate about his actions, although they would not be the same as what I would have done in the same circumstances Prodego talk 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I appreciate your it. I will do my best to be a valuable and nonhostile contributor to Wikipedia. And I'll try to avoid enforcing WP:NOT. 69.105.172.180 (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Apparently I misunderstood the RFC/UC page also... I thought that someone posts a complaint and then someone else needs to read the complaint and agree it is valid, but according to Template:RfC3 two people must have been involved in the situation and post a complaint. I'll try to dig through the policy pages and find a better process, maybe arbitration committee. 69.105.172.180 (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Not so; one person needs to file the complaint and two other people need to affirm the complaint by signing onto it. Any RfC with less than two people affirming the dispute within 48 hours is removed, lest I'm mistaken. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
That was my original impression. Template:RfC3 says "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed" which seems like a very different idea. I am somewhat confused. Any additional thoughts? 69.105.172.180 (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That just means you need to have two people sign onto the RfC when you file it. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 05:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing you're trying to start an RFC on my use of sysop tools. If that's the case, the best place to find people to certify your RFC would be at WP:AN/I. (Usually, that's the first place you would want to go with this sort of thing, anyway.) --causa sui talk 06:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. I am sure you forgot to mention you were changing your username. Some guy (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't dream of robbing you of the satisfaction of finding out for yourself. You seem pretty good at sleuthing around ;-) ⟳ausa کui × 23:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not appreciate being mocked, nor being forced to "sleuth". I was initially very confused by the signatures in your comments suddenly changing and I had to waste time digging through page history to figure out what happened. This has already taken me days to put together. This is not a game for me, and I am irritated you treat it as such.
It appears you did not actually apply an indefinite page protection as requested, though you never bothered to correct me on this point. Since the page protection was still excessive and unnecessary and given before the block, I am continuing with the process of filing a formal complaint. Some guy (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I can't think of a circumstance in which I would indefinitely semi-protect a user talk page, though I suppose there could be one. In retrospect, I think a week was probably too long as it was, which is why I shortened it manually. If you don't enjoy the sleuthing, feel free to ask me any other questions directly on my talk page, since I'm talking this one off my watch list. --ausa کui × 23:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
If by sleuthing you mean trying to enhance my understanding of policy, I don't appreciate your terminology. You actually protected it for two weeks. You shortened it after I was unblocked by Protego and had numerous times expressed my concern with your excessive use of tools, correct? I don't really care if you read these anymore, but if someone else does my responses are present. Some guy (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)