User talk:Londo06/Archive 36

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

Student World cup article[edit]

Thanks for moving that article entry to the correct part of the new articles list...I somehow totally missed that those dates hadn't been archived yet! JoelUK (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring on figure captions. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. See the previous unblock discussion less than two weeks ago, in which you participated. Tiptoety said, I am willing to unblock if you agree to no longer edit war at all, not just on the page in question. It appears that you agreed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2008 (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.

Londo06 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

That discussion was related to that day and to an issue over a broad range of pages that has since been resolved. That statement was for that range of pages. However I do obviously admit that I had done wrong, and I am more than happy to recieve a punishment, but I believe that this is draconian in the extreme. Could I state that the discussion that I attempted to enter into was dismissed, even derided, and when the olive branch was offered once again it was slapped away once again. I would request a review over the recent few days and the procedure and protocol which I followed. I believe that I have done wrong, but have attempted to stick to the rules, but have had all my attempts slapped back in my face. I believe a more suitable punishment would be something like 10 hours, rather than 10 days

Decline reason:

The block is not a "punishment" but a technical means of preventing you from edit warring for at least ten days. — Athaenara 01:33, 3 November 2008 (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.

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.

Londo06 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I previously had an edit war over a range of pages; though I did not break the 3RR rule, I freely admitted wrong doing and pre-emptively stated that I would leave those range of pages alone. The issue has since been resolved, with discussion already entered into prior to that ban, and the issue was resolved. As stated above in relation to this issue I had gone about the correct procedure of offering the party in question the chance to come to the table as it were, but these were rejected, and on some pages derided. I feel it was a case of a user getting to me, and me losing my temperament, rather than a concerted effort to edit war. I do still however see this as draconian, even though it is not necessarily termed a punishment. As before I see this a temporary lapse of judgement on my part. I would welcome a reduction in the ban, and perhaps the best lesson to learn is that there are facilities available when a user refuses to enter into an adult conversation and that I allowed myself to be put in this situation.

Decline reason:

You seem to have a history of these problems, and also seem to have a history of "talking your way" out of sanctions, only to later resume the same problematic behaviors later. Your october 23rd block was lifted under a good-faith belief that you would not engage in edit warring ever again. That you later DID engage in edit warring shows that your word cannot be trusted in this regard. As far as I can see it, The Boy Who Cried Wolf may be a good thing to read while this block is in effect. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:10, 3 November 2008 (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.

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.

Londo06 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I did promise not to edit war on an issue over a broad range of pages. Something I have kept to, and an issue that had been resolved prior to the block by moving conversation to both the subject talk pages and individual editors talk pages. I have kept my word. I would request that a review of my attempts to enter into a proper conversation was made by myself. I am not asking for this ban to be quashed, merely reduced. I did not edit war on the pages in question for the previous ban, as stated earlier did move the conversation forwards to bring the matter to resolution. I would see this an aberation, merely letting another user get to me by refusing to answer, and deriding my attempts. I would welcome a reduction in the ban as I feel it was only a momentary lapse, and would also request a link for when an editor refuses to acknowledge communications. I would also like to know why the other user in question has not even been reprimanded, or even a link to edit warring given to them. That would in no way be anger directed at them, just wondering why.

Decline reason:

I really do not believe you are capable of controlling yourself when in a heated edit war. However, I am willing to make a deal. If you agree to accept a 1RR restriction on all page for 6 months, meaning you could only revert a page at most once a day, I would be willing to reduce your block to five days, less time served. — MBisanz talk 14:43, 3 November 2008 (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.

Reply to offer. I would accept the 1RR on all the pages on wikipedia immediately, were the block lifted to match my words. I did attempt to enter into conversation on this one, all I can say is that sometimes you do meet those who you have wronged and they will not be quick to want to talk to you. 1RR is fine with me as long as I can edit once again.Londo06 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yellow check.svg

Block length reduced to five days, 1RR is imposed through April 3, 2009.

Request handled by: MBisanz talk 19:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my counter offer was to adhere to the 1RR with an immediate lift. I really don't see a reduction of five days as a good enough offer to cover all of wikipedia, regardless of my knowledge that I have to be more careful when dealing with people such as jeff79 who I have obviously offended through sock-puppetry. I will aim to do so, as evidenced in part by my crime; I followed procedure and protocol up until his refusal to come to the table, acknowledge me, and openly deride me. I lost my cool. Solution is to steer clear of this character. I will become attempt to associate myself with all the programs and facilities out there to deal with these types of situations, and the end result will be the end to edit warring on my part. I am however not willing to have a 1RR in place for the sake of 5 days when it comes to vandals creating havoc on pages, and ip's having their nuisance value. I am ready to rock and roll, 1RR from now, not a few days in the future.Londo06 19:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is either 5 days and 1 RR or 10 days, I was going to decline the unblock request as other admins had done, but felt like giving another chance, apparently I was mistaken. MBisanz talk 19:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not a case of me of supporting edit warring. I welcome the chance, but TBH it seems like I am giving away an awful lot for something I plan to do anyway in refusing to get drawn into edit warring, and secondly I seem to lose out when it comes to vandals and nuisance ip editors. I honestly appreciate the offer and the spirit in which it was given. Unfortunately with situations such as those detailed above I believe I would be put in an extremely precarious position for the sake of a few days. As stated earlier the best thing for self-control is to avoid characters who I have sinned against in the past, and follow protocol through to its conclusion for the rest of the human population. Many thanks for the offer, but at this time and the current terms I shall have to decline.Londo06 19:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To any adminstrators. I am willing to commit to the 1RR rule for 6 months offered by MBisanz.Londo06 17:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Agreed to 1RR per day for 6 months, extending through 9 May, 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Request handled by: EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)