User talk:Dhimwit: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Jersey Devil (talk | contribs) |
removing vandalism |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
FYI Pigsonthewing, Jersey Devil and anyone else: |
|||
Content below no longer of any use. If anyone feels differently, let me know. Cheers |
|||
"Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. |
|||
==Blocked for 48 hours== |
|||
The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. |
|||
{{Block|using another username to avoid a block}}--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 00:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary. |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|I was not avoiding a block, I was letting an admin know that he had handled a situation EXTREMELY badly and that I had filed a complaint against him for it. There was no other way to let him know, given that he had no contact information on his userpage.|decline=That's definitely block evasion, whether intentional or not. Jersey Devil has emails enabled, it appears. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#1E90FF">'''Luna Santin'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</span> 04:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it." |
|||
Reviewing administrator, see [[User talk:82.20.124.228]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.20.124.228&diff=124746946&oldid=124741204] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jersey_Devil&diff=124734301&oldid=124236956] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jersey_Devil&diff=124746516&oldid=124735913]--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 01:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
You broke the above REPEATEDLY and should be PUNISHED by being banned and having admin status removed. |
|||
Well if he does, it's very hard to find (so perhaps a source is in order). Also, your statements of evading a block are POV. All in all, the only intelligent and logical thing to do was exactly what I have done. |
|||
Given there is no easily visible way of contacting him through email, I will put up another unblock request. If you delete it or decline it without any attempt at discussion, this will show that you are just interested in power. Prove me wrong. |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I was not avoiding a block, I was letting an admin know that he had handled a situation EXTREMELY badly and that I had filed a complaint against him for it. There was no other way to let him know, given that he had no contact information on his userpage|decline=Blocked users may only edit their talk page, or they may be blocked again for evasion. They can reach other editors per e-mail, accessible through the mail link on the user page. I recommend that you calm down and use your block time to read [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:CIVIL]]. We're not here to oppress anyone, we're here to make this encyclopedia work. — [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
That doesn't address what I said, which is that there is no easily visible means of contact. If I am wrong provide me with a link to it. I suggest every single one of you involved in this read the statements about improving pages instead of reverting whenever possible, being nice to people, assuming good faith and trying to resolve a dispute before issuing warnings/blockings as you all have paid no attention to them at all. |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I was not avoiding a block, I was letting an admin know that he had handled a situation EXTREMELY badly and that I had filed a complaint against him for it. There was no other way to let him know, given that he had no contact information on his userpage|decline=Repeated use of the unblock template is disruptive and may cause your block to be extended. — [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 12:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
Thank you Sandstein for proving my point about power mad admins who treat people like kids instead of engaging in discussion and reading what non-admins have to say. I have repeatedly asked that, if I am wrong about there being easily visible contact information on Jersey Devil's userpage, I be given a link to it. Not too much to ask for is it? |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I was not avoiding a block, I was letting an admin know that he had handled a situation EXTREMELY badly and that I had filed a complaint against him for it. There was no other way to let him know, given that he had no contact information on his userpage|decline=Email him, it's right there on the left hand side of the page under "email this user." Unblock declined. — [[User:Metros232|Metros232]] 13:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
Revision as of 16:15, 22 April 2007
FYI Pigsonthewing, Jersey Devil and anyone else:
"Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page.
Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.
Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it."
You broke the above REPEATEDLY and should be PUNISHED by being banned and having admin status removed.