Jump to content

User talk:RegentsPark: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→unblock: fix links
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 110: Line 110:
Toddst1 - I had a faulty understanding of what edit warring /3rr is. Pagalakahinka's knowledge of rules was worser than mine as he is a new user. We both did back and forth reverting and it produced 4 reverts in about 30 hours. Pagalakahinka stopped his additions to the article after i issued a 3rr warning and started discussing the issue with me. Two hours after the last revert, when the edit war has clearly ended and both participants are engaging in a discussion, you blocked us both. We were both discussing the issue in the talk page - just like the BRD process recommends. At this point why do we both need a punitive block?. A strong warning (and in my case stripping rollbacker rights) would have shown us what we were doing wrong. Blocking us for 24 hours achieved nothing - except handing out punishment for us both. So what we have here are two users with insufficient knowledge of WP policies who technically violated the rules, but in the end settled down to build consensus. The system clearly worked as it should. So tell me what exactly blocking us for 24 hours is going to accomplish?. --[[User:Sodabottle|Sodabottle]] ([[User talk:Sodabottle|talk]]) 21:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Toddst1 - I had a faulty understanding of what edit warring /3rr is. Pagalakahinka's knowledge of rules was worser than mine as he is a new user. We both did back and forth reverting and it produced 4 reverts in about 30 hours. Pagalakahinka stopped his additions to the article after i issued a 3rr warning and started discussing the issue with me. Two hours after the last revert, when the edit war has clearly ended and both participants are engaging in a discussion, you blocked us both. We were both discussing the issue in the talk page - just like the BRD process recommends. At this point why do we both need a punitive block?. A strong warning (and in my case stripping rollbacker rights) would have shown us what we were doing wrong. Blocking us for 24 hours achieved nothing - except handing out punishment for us both. So what we have here are two users with insufficient knowledge of WP policies who technically violated the rules, but in the end settled down to build consensus. The system clearly worked as it should. So tell me what exactly blocking us for 24 hours is going to accomplish?. --[[User:Sodabottle|Sodabottle]] ([[User talk:Sodabottle|talk]]) 21:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
::That's complete bullshit. Your comments [[User_talk:Paglakahinka#Edit_warring_warning_in_J._Jayalalitha]] show that you knew a slow-motion edit war are grounds for blocking. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 22:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
::That's complete bullshit. Your comments [[User_talk:Paglakahinka#Edit_warring_warning_in_J._Jayalalitha]] show that you knew a slow-motion edit war are grounds for blocking. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 22:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

:::I never knew slow motion edit warring would lead to blocking till i got blocked. Till today, i have only seen people being strongly warned for slow motion edit wars and articles locked (again not my strong area, as i dont generally go edit warring over content). Read my message again - it says [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APaglakahinka&action=historysubmit&diff=434788132&oldid=434787010 Doing so repeatedly is slow motion edit warring. If you reinsert one more time without consensus, i will report you to the admins]. Did i tell him that he will get blocked for that?. I told him "i will report you to the admins". For me that would mean a admin taking a look and warning the user to desist and follow policy. I warned him about blocking when he came close to breaking 3rr, by using the standard 3rr template. I repeat, i never knew any kind of edit warring is grounds for a block - i was aware of 3rr and in some special cases 1rr/0rr. But not this. --[[User:Sodabottle|Sodabottle]] ([[User talk:Sodabottle|talk]]) 22:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

:block was unnecessary and excessive. a warning/reminder would have been enough — my intereaction with Sodabottle gives me the confidence to believe that he would have certainly complied with that. i dont want to blame anyone and escalate the issue unnecessarily, everybody makes mistakes. --[[User:CarTick|CarTick]] ([[User talk:CarTick|talk]]) 22:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
:block was unnecessary and excessive. a warning/reminder would have been enough — my intereaction with Sodabottle gives me the confidence to believe that he would have certainly complied with that. i dont want to blame anyone and escalate the issue unnecessarily, everybody makes mistakes. --[[User:CarTick|CarTick]] ([[User talk:CarTick|talk]]) 22:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:35, 17 June 2011

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tree shaping and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 11:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moi? --rgpk (comment) 19:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You posted in defence of Philip at an ANI thread detailed in this RFC - I'm soliciting views from anyone I can find who has contributed to discussions involving him, and thought you may like to contribute. Parrot of Doom 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I guess I'll have to do some digging. Thanks for the notification. --rgpk (comment) 20:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See here Parrot of Doom 07:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I remember now. --rgpk (comment) 10:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, would you please review the last day or two of contributions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer? I wish to ask a suitable admin to take the action you were proposing there, and it would be appreciated if you could suggest where I can raise that request. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Ncmvocalist to take a look. He has a lot of experience with RfCs and I trust his judgement. --rgpk (comment) 13:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

  • I had come to you earlier for advice on many occasions when ever I had to handle BLP issues. I am one of the long-time editor who has been working with the "Sathya Sai Baba" article [1] since 2009. I spent the last 3 years cleaning this article addressed every BLP violation, taking it to every possible Wikipedia BLP forum. You had helped me in the past with your advices. It gives me great satisfaction that in the last 3 years I did succeed in changing this article from a BLP nightmare (how it was in 2009) to an encyclopedic article - using highly reliable scholarly sources.
  • After all this clean effort in the last 3 years I am being wrongly accused of Sock Puppetry with out any valid claims. The reasons given are ridiculous - citing my UserName as the problem (after 3 years of my contributions), spelling and typo errors I might have made in my past edits as the reason for the sock puppetry claim case.
  • You have seen the Sathya Sai Baba article BLP nightmares in 2009 and also know how it looks today [2] after 3 years of massive Clean up. You also knew about me as I had come to you on many occasions for BLP advice and help. I would greatly appreciate your comments and your help in this case here [3]. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize but I don't have the time today to look at the report in detail. I did read the spi report and note that jehochman has asked for more detail and will investigate further so you're likely in good hands anyway. Will try to delve deeper into this tomorrow if the matter is not resolved before then. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 16:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Another interaction ban proposal for Sarek and TT

I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. --rgpk (comment) 01:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Tibet on South Asia

Quigley seems to want to start a discussion on the inclusion of Tibet in South Asia. Please chime in if you can. You are being informed of this as you took part in similar discussions on Talk:South Asia in the past. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pain and The Great One

I'm perplexed by your decision. You are aware that there are recognized "correct" ways of capitalizing titles, right? Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, have standardization rules. Using your logic, to pull a random example, Because of the Times should be Because Of The Times because that's the way it's styled on the cover.

See my Owl and the Pussycat/Cat and the Canary examples for why The Pain and The Great One is an exception to the rule. Wikkitywack (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we go with whatever title is in normal use rather than the "correct" one. Or, to put it another way, we reflect usage rather than correct it. --rgpk (comment) 16:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbolt move declined

Can you take another look at Talk:Thunderbolt#Suggested move? You had previously closed this one as no consensus. The users who support the move appear to primarilly base their positions on WP:DAB, while the keep opinions appear to be based on the dictionary definition of the term - not the primary topic - and so have no policy or guideline to support the keep postions.

Is there a noticeboard to discuss or appeal closed move requests?

I took another look at this today after another IP tried converting the article to be on the subject of the technology (which has its own article at Thunderbolt (interface)). I disagree with their actions, but it brought this article back to my attention.

I don't want to restart another move discussion, especially as I started the prior discussion. Restarting one myself could potentially be viewed as disruptive, so I feel that if a new discussion is needed it should originate from a user other than myself. But, I strongly disagree with the outcome of the prior discussion - so thought I would ask you as you're much more familiar with those processes (I spend most of my time with the WP:SBL and WP:AIV, so not fully familiar with move request procedures). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have several alternatives when you disagree with the outcome of a move request and more leeway when the request is closed as 'no consensus'. (1) Open a new RM after a reasonable period of time - I'd say about 3 months when a move is closed as 'no consensus' is sufficient time though there is no hard and fast rule about this. (2) Some form of dispute resolution. In this case and RfC would seem more appropriate since there aren't well defined parties available for mediation. (3) Arbitration - but that seems a bit of a sledgehammer approach for this situation. My suggestion would be to wait another month and start a new move request in mid-July. That wouldn't be disruptive (and you can quote me on that!). --rgpk (comment) 21:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notify Talk

You have a message in Talk:Mughal_Empire#Protected about the lock. » nafSadh did say 05:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

unblock

That was ridiculously arbitrary and absolutely rude. Do you think the editor even knows the difference between an edit war and 3RR? It's apparent from the talk page that s/he doesn't and unblocking your buddy is shameful! Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He/she is not my buddy. And, blocking should not be used when a warning would have achieved the same effect. Using tools in a heavy handed way is what is shameful, not unblocking an obviously good faith editor. --rgpk (comment) 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both parties were editing in good faith and both were convinced they were right in their edit warring. Your bias is more than apparent by your statement above. Toddst1 (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I really don't see much point in blocking editors when a warning would work just as well, but, I suppose, opinions differ. BTW, I've unblocked the other editor as well. That editor doesn't even appear to have been adequately warned about the consequences of an edit war. --rgpk (comment) 21:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree in the end with your unblocks, I do believe you went over the heads of many other administrators. Paglakahinka had already had his unblock request denied. I believe the least you could have done is request an affirmation from both editors that they will completely refrain from edit warring. You could possibly have instigated an enforced one-revert rule. I am not an administrator, but those are my views based on the experience I have had here. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1 - I had a faulty understanding of what edit warring /3rr is. Pagalakahinka's knowledge of rules was worser than mine as he is a new user. We both did back and forth reverting and it produced 4 reverts in about 30 hours. Pagalakahinka stopped his additions to the article after i issued a 3rr warning and started discussing the issue with me. Two hours after the last revert, when the edit war has clearly ended and both participants are engaging in a discussion, you blocked us both. We were both discussing the issue in the talk page - just like the BRD process recommends. At this point why do we both need a punitive block?. A strong warning (and in my case stripping rollbacker rights) would have shown us what we were doing wrong. Blocking us for 24 hours achieved nothing - except handing out punishment for us both. So what we have here are two users with insufficient knowledge of WP policies who technically violated the rules, but in the end settled down to build consensus. The system clearly worked as it should. So tell me what exactly blocking us for 24 hours is going to accomplish?. --Sodabottle (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's complete bullshit. Your comments User_talk:Paglakahinka#Edit_warring_warning_in_J._Jayalalitha show that you knew a slow-motion edit war are grounds for blocking. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never knew slow motion edit warring would lead to blocking till i got blocked. Till today, i have only seen people being strongly warned for slow motion edit wars and articles locked (again not my strong area, as i dont generally go edit warring over content). Read my message again - it says Doing so repeatedly is slow motion edit warring. If you reinsert one more time without consensus, i will report you to the admins. Did i tell him that he will get blocked for that?. I told him "i will report you to the admins". For me that would mean a admin taking a look and warning the user to desist and follow policy. I warned him about blocking when he came close to breaking 3rr, by using the standard 3rr template. I repeat, i never knew any kind of edit warring is grounds for a block - i was aware of 3rr and in some special cases 1rr/0rr. But not this. --Sodabottle (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
block was unnecessary and excessive. a warning/reminder would have been enough — my intereaction with Sodabottle gives me the confidence to believe that he would have certainly complied with that. i dont want to blame anyone and escalate the issue unnecessarily, everybody makes mistakes. --CarTick (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark&oldid=434846010"