User talk:Netoholic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) at 07:06, 19 June 2018 (→‎June 2018: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Some thoughts:
"To avoid unkind criticism: say nothing, be nothing, do nothing."
– Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)
 "There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Wikipedia is not a democracy."
– Jimmy Wales

DYK for Passing on the Right

On 7 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Passing on the Right, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Passing on the Right. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Passing on the Right), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Netoholic. Natureium (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its bias!

Just so you understand why people seem a bit harsh with your replies. In academic conversations people are weary of editors that claim bias all the time vs understanding that opinions differ. The term bias is used by the far sides of political opponents. Your getting such a big kick back because of your tone (word choices.) Try terms like "not representative" or "slanted". You need to remove the appearance of biases when making observations by not claiming bias all the time. Piercarlo Valdesolo; Jesse Graham (2016). Social Psychology of Political Polarization. Psychology Press. pp. 117–. ISBN 978-1-317-28885-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help).--Moxy (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

In case you did not see my reply to you at COIN, if you ever again cast aspersions about my integrity as you did here and here, I will seek sanctions against you at WP:AE. This conduct is unacceptable.- MrX 🖋 19:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given TonyBallioni's recent warning to you about this exact sort of thing, I have drawn his attention to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for displaying a battleground mentality and using administrative board to administrative boards to further disputes with other editors on the page WP:COIN, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard if unwilling to act upon it.
My edits to COIN were in no way disruptive. Seconding the concern of another editor's report and asking for uninvolved editors to look into that concern is the whole point of having a Noticeboard. In essence, every Noticeboard discussion involves an existing dispute of one form or another, and this warning has a chilling effect on my ability to participate if I am to fear a block every time I post about a concern. TonyBallioni was petitioned directly to enact this block, and I was given no opportunity for uninvolved admins to evaluate whether my post was disruptive at all, as such a concern is normally brought to AE first. The person who asked for this block had a previous AE request closed with no action, and that's why I suspect they petitioned Tony directly instead today. Per discussion about this warning with TonyBallioni, he and others provided extensive clarification that the warning was to encourage me to "think twice before submitting reports that the rest of the community would think should not be resolved through admin boards" and should NOT be thought of as a TBAN. --Netoholic @ 21:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]] if unwilling to act upon it.<br /> My edits to COIN were in no way disruptive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=846293537 Seconding] the concern of another editor's report and asking for uninvolved editors to look into that concern is the whole point of having a Noticeboard. In essence, ''every'' Noticeboard discussion involves an existing dispute of one form or another, and this warning has a [[chilling effect]] on my ability to participate if I am to fear a block every time I post about a concern. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&diff=846303890&oldid=846299938 petitioned directly to enact this block], and I was given no opportunity for uninvolved admins to evaluate whether my post was disruptive at all, as such a concern is normally brought to AE first. The person who asked for this block had a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=845685890&oldid=845685630 previous AE request] closed with no action, and that's why I suspect they petitioned Tony directly instead today. Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&oldid=844120808#Appeal_of_warning_issued_by_TonyBallioni discussion about this warning] with [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]], he and others provided extensive clarification that the warning was to encourage me to "think twice before submitting reports that the rest of the community would think should not be resolved through admin boards" and should NOT be thought of as a TBAN. --[[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 21:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]] if unwilling to act upon it.<br /> My edits to COIN were in no way disruptive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=846293537 Seconding] the concern of another editor's report and asking for uninvolved editors to look into that concern is the whole point of having a Noticeboard. In essence, ''every'' Noticeboard discussion involves an existing dispute of one form or another, and this warning has a [[chilling effect]] on my ability to participate if I am to fear a block every time I post about a concern. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&diff=846303890&oldid=846299938 petitioned directly to enact this block], and I was given no opportunity for uninvolved admins to evaluate whether my post was disruptive at all, as such a concern is normally brought to AE first. The person who asked for this block had a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=845685890&oldid=845685630 previous AE request] closed with no action, and that's why I suspect they petitioned Tony directly instead today. Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&oldid=844120808#Appeal_of_warning_issued_by_TonyBallioni discussion about this warning] with [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]], he and others provided extensive clarification that the warning was to encourage me to "think twice before submitting reports that the rest of the community would think should not be resolved through admin boards" and should NOT be thought of as a TBAN. --[[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 21:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]] if unwilling to act upon it.<br /> My edits to COIN were in no way disruptive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=846293537 Seconding] the concern of another editor's report and asking for uninvolved editors to look into that concern is the whole point of having a Noticeboard. In essence, ''every'' Noticeboard discussion involves an existing dispute of one form or another, and this warning has a [[chilling effect]] on my ability to participate if I am to fear a block every time I post about a concern. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&diff=846303890&oldid=846299938 petitioned directly to enact this block], and I was given no opportunity for uninvolved admins to evaluate whether my post was disruptive at all, as such a concern is normally brought to AE first. The person who asked for this block had a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=845685890&oldid=845685630 previous AE request] closed with no action, and that's why I suspect they petitioned Tony directly instead today. Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&oldid=844120808#Appeal_of_warning_issued_by_TonyBallioni discussion about this warning] with [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]], he and others provided extensive clarification that the warning was to encourage me to "think twice before submitting reports that the rest of the community would think should not be resolved through admin boards" and should NOT be thought of as a TBAN. --[[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 21:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
  • I went ahead and copied this for you to AE since you pinged me: [1]. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Netoholic, blocks are "preventative." And the unblock process is rather easy for an editor who knows how to navigate the PC. Perhaps this is a good time time to deescalate, get unblocked and get back to editing? – Lionel(talk) 22:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lionelt:, not sure I follow. What is "PC"? --Netoholic @ 00:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a rare contributor here, I'm honestly confused about what this block is for or what it hopes to accomplish. His only comments at WP:COIN were responses, not new postings. Unless there's some ban from Admin Noticeboards I missed, I'm kind of surprised this block hasn't already been undone. At the very least, the block reason should be expanded to clarify why this block is necessary and what it is preventing. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • TonyBallioni: Yeah, I read that, I'm just not seeing how comments and a revert at COIN are block-worthy offenses. So is he not supposed to be commenting on admin noticeboards at all, and if that's the case, who decided that? I also think it's dangerous to silence editors from speaking at noticeboards, as it stifles the free exchange of ideas and opinions. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Implying that an editor he’s in a fight with elsewhere had a conflict of interest on an unrelated article with absolutely no evidence on a board mainly used these days to fight spammers after having been warned for similar conduct is in my view blockable, and every admin who commented has agreed. It was closed earlier as the appeal being declined but was reopened because another administrator is considering additional sanctions. I’m not going to comment more out of respect for Netoholic, but was responding for accountability sake. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netoholic&oldid=846514683"