new section |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
==Dear Skyerise== |
==Dear Skyerise== |
||
You've now made '''''eight''''' edits here since I first told you to stop posting to my talkpage. I'm going to request a formal interaction ban when I get unblocked, and would advise you to read [[Wikipedia:Harassment#User space harassment]] in the meantime. [[User:Bozzio|¡Boz]][[User talk:Bozzio|zio!]] 11:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
You've now made '''''eight''''' edits here since I first told you to stop posting to my talkpage. I'm going to request a formal interaction ban when I get unblocked, and would advise you to read [[Wikipedia:Harassment#User space harassment]] in the meantime. [[User:Bozzio|¡Boz]][[User talk:Bozzio|zio!]] 11:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
:''Now'' you've asked me to stop posting and I will henceforth respect that. I don't take bitchy orders posted in edit summaries, and this is the first time you've posted it on either of our talk pages. Edit summaries are not for communicating with other editors. Duh! [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 11:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:42, 5 June 2015
Discretionary sanctions alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
June 2015
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Skyerise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This edit-summary, "enjoy your block," is entirely inappropriate. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan: What personal attack? I haven't made any edits to Skyerise's talkpage other than the mandated warning templates? ¡Bozzio! 04:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Read again: edit summary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Trout
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Weegeerunner (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Monty845 17:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Monty845: forgive me if I'm being too hasty, but what's the rationale for blocking me and not Skyerise? I've reverted Skyerise three times, which doesn't fall under 3RR (but is borderline), whereas Skyerise has made seven reversions to their preferred version (not to mention the other harassment). I'm now unable to respond at ANI, which is unfortunate, and you haven't made any comments there. I'm a bit confused as to where you're coming from. ¡Bozzio! 17:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sort of on the fence on Skyerise (and have now commented to that effect on your report to AN/I), but the important difference is that Skyerise is claiming an exemption under 3rr policy. I'm not really sure I think the edits qualify for that exemption, but its a grey area that needs discussion. I can see no way your edits would qualify for the 3rr exemption. Monty845 17:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- The thing is, whatever Skyerise wants to believe, this is primarily a content dispute. I'm in favour of the status quo, Skyerise is against the status quo. There's a huge, huge discussion at the Village Pump which pertains to whether the status quo should be kept or not. Skyerise doesn't want to wait around to see the results, they're going ahead and implementing their preferred version. Skyerise likes to cry "MOS:IDENTITY" and "WP:BLP" to scare people off, but there's really no substance, and I don't think they've actually read either of those. Skyerise is claiming a 3RR exemption based on BLP, but that only pertains to "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material" – given that my edits are restoring the status quo, I don't they constitute any of those. ¡Bozzio! 17:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Monty845: (pinging you for this and the above because I don't know if you're watching this page) I think Skyerise's latest comment might give an insight into their likelihood of future edit-warring…shame I can't bring it up at ANI. ¡Bozzio! 18:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Again, I tend to agree with you that it was a violation, but there are a decent number of editors who don't see it that way, and if I blocked in such circumstances, it would be contentious at the very least. I know it seems somewhat unfair that you ended up blocked, and they didn't, I don't have a great answer to that, other than that I as an admin I try to respect consensus, and where there is a 3rr violation with no claim to an exemption, its clear the community expects a block. Monty845 18:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Monty845: (pinging you for this and the above because I don't know if you're watching this page) I think Skyerise's latest comment might give an insight into their likelihood of future edit-warring…shame I can't bring it up at ANI. ¡Bozzio! 18:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- The thing is, whatever Skyerise wants to believe, this is primarily a content dispute. I'm in favour of the status quo, Skyerise is against the status quo. There's a huge, huge discussion at the Village Pump which pertains to whether the status quo should be kept or not. Skyerise doesn't want to wait around to see the results, they're going ahead and implementing their preferred version. Skyerise likes to cry "MOS:IDENTITY" and "WP:BLP" to scare people off, but there's really no substance, and I don't think they've actually read either of those. Skyerise is claiming a 3RR exemption based on BLP, but that only pertains to "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material" – given that my edits are restoring the status quo, I don't they constitute any of those. ¡Bozzio! 17:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sort of on the fence on Skyerise (and have now commented to that effect on your report to AN/I), but the important difference is that Skyerise is claiming an exemption under 3rr policy. I'm not really sure I think the edits qualify for that exemption, but its a grey area that needs discussion. I can see no way your edits would qualify for the 3rr exemption. Monty845 17:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Monty845: I gotta say, I find this block very odd. The closing admin ( @EdJohnston: ) at the 3RR notice board indicated the BLP exemption that Skyerise is claiming does not apply, and warned him over it. We can quibble if he deserved to be blocked for making 7 reversions based on a non-existent exemption, or whether he should be let of with a warning due to possible misunderstanding of the exemptions to 3RR- but to then come here and block User:Bozzio, who technically didn't even break 3RR? I urge you to reconsider. All Rows4 (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- @All Rows4: Reverts: 1 2 3 4 5 plus another just outside 24h Seems to be a clear 5 reverts in 24 hours to me. My block was based on the AN/I thread, and had nothing to do with the report an WP:ANEW. Monty845 04:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Monty845: The more I look at this the more I think action needs to be taken against Skyerise. No one has addressed Skyerise's continued harassment of me, their harassment of IP editors, or their false claims and reports of vandalism (all outlined at ANI), or the fact that they taunted me on my talkpage because I was blocked and they weren't. Skyerise has also continued edit-warring today while the discussion VPP is underway. I'm not disputing my block, but for me to be blocked and for them to be able to carry on their disrupting editing is ridiculous. ¡Bozzio! 05:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Monty845:. And yet again. Skyerise is now being reverted by other non-involved editors per WP:BRD, the very same reversions I was blocked for. Skyerise has been given their fair share of warning, it's ludicrous that they haven't been blocked. ¡Bozzio! 15:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging @Floquenbeam, @Epic Genius, @Liz, @Weegeerunner, @C.Fred, @Resolute: (all from the ANI). I can't post at the ANI, but hopefully one of you is an admin and can read the above (or just look at Skyerise's recent edits). Edit: Also pinging @Drmargi and P:, who appears to be in the thick of Skyerise's intimidation attempts. ¡Bozzio! 15:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- In the interest of pursuing what I think are your legitimate concerns, would you be willing to agree, as an unblock condition, to a topic ban on anything related to Jenner/Skyerise, except for here on your talk page, and admin noticeboards, for the next 26 hours? (the remaining block duration) Also, to stay away from Skyerise's talk page unless it involved any mandatory notification. Monty845 15:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging @Floquenbeam, @Epic Genius, @Liz, @Weegeerunner, @C.Fred, @Resolute: (all from the ANI). I can't post at the ANI, but hopefully one of you is an admin and can read the above (or just look at Skyerise's recent edits). Edit: Also pinging @Drmargi and P:, who appears to be in the thick of Skyerise's intimidation attempts. ¡Bozzio! 15:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Monty845:. And yet again. Skyerise is now being reverted by other non-involved editors per WP:BRD, the very same reversions I was blocked for. Skyerise has been given their fair share of warning, it's ludicrous that they haven't been blocked. ¡Bozzio! 15:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Monty845: The more I look at this the more I think action needs to be taken against Skyerise. No one has addressed Skyerise's continued harassment of me, their harassment of IP editors, or their false claims and reports of vandalism (all outlined at ANI), or the fact that they taunted me on my talkpage because I was blocked and they weren't. Skyerise has also continued edit-warring today while the discussion VPP is underway. I'm not disputing my block, but for me to be blocked and for them to be able to carry on their disrupting editing is ridiculous. ¡Bozzio! 05:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- @All Rows4: Reverts: 1 2 3 4 5 plus another just outside 24h Seems to be a clear 5 reverts in 24 hours to me. My block was based on the AN/I thread, and had nothing to do with the report an WP:ANEW. Monty845 04:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Monty845: I agree to all of those conditions, I think I'm going to have a break from here for a while. As long as the same conditions are imposed on Skyerise, too – no posting on my talkpage, etc. Seriously, just look at their recent edit history – they've been told umpteen times that MOS:IDENTITY doesn't apply, and they're still going around reverting while the VPP discussion is in place. I just want the same conditions to apply to both of us. ¡Bozzio! 06:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC).
Dear Skyerise
You've now made eight edits here since I first told you to stop posting to my talkpage. I'm going to request a formal interaction ban when I get unblocked, and would advise you to read Wikipedia:Harassment#User space harassment in the meantime. ¡Bozzio! 11:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Now you've asked me to stop posting and I will henceforth respect that. I don't take bitchy orders posted in edit summaries, and this is the first time you've posted it on either of our talk pages. Edit summaries are not for communicating with other editors. Duh! Skyerise (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)