220.236.126.177 (talk) No edit summary Tag: Manual revert |
220.236.126.177 (talk) →September 2023: Reply Tags: Reverted Reply |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:::::Would like to know why there's been a delay in my block being lifted [[Special:Contributions/220.236.126.177|220.236.126.177]] ([[User talk:220.236.126.177#top|talk]]) 13:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
:::::Would like to know why there's been a delay in my block being lifted [[Special:Contributions/220.236.126.177|220.236.126.177]] ([[User talk:220.236.126.177#top|talk]]) 13:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::There's no (unusual) delay, just a lack of administrators patrolling [[CAT:RFU]] who, having a quick look at the existing discussion, suddenly become interested in unblocking. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 23:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
::::::There's no (unusual) delay, just a lack of administrators patrolling [[CAT:RFU]] who, having a quick look at the existing discussion, suddenly become interested in unblocking. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 23:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Will you please lift the block so I can continue editing before the grand final? [[Special:Contributions/220.236.126.177|220.236.126.177]] ([[User talk:220.236.126.177#top|talk]]) 12:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:52, 26 September 2023
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PhinsUp23 (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
September 2023
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)- If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
220.236.126.177 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I give up. If you want certain stats displayed incorrectly that's on you. You can have the National records page, I don't care any more. But please allow me to continue contributing to other pages, like point scoring records and transfers on season pages. One year is going way too far220.236.126.177 (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Blocks are for preventing disruption, such as that caused by your edit warring and attacks. Editing disputes are inevitable and it is unacceptable to say you will just ignore them as this is insufficient assurance. As such, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2023 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
How will you respond to future disputes, for example if your edits are reverted? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Disputing is just a waste of time, just not worth it any more. From now on I'll just stick to what I know well enough to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.126.177 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at Special:Diff/1173768589, the underlying issue is not specific to the List of National Rugby League records. The issue is a disagreement about mathematics, and your ability to correctly round numbers. For example, 7000/9 is closer to "777.78" than to "777.77". Both are inaccurate, but the latter is worse. Do you agree? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd agree that to save any more unwanted petty fighting I'm just going to leave it well enough alone. Also you're the only person I've talked to that hasn't automatically denied an unban appeal. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- What other appeals have you made? It's not enough to say you will just leave things alone and it's not worth it, there is always the chance an edit will be disputed. We need to know how you will handle this. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're waiting for me to say. I've been banned for more than long enough (could be seen as excessive), not sure when enough punishment is enough to whoever is in charge of these decisions. I know a lot of staff here don't think kindly of me nor do they have to. I do my best to contribute to other sites, sometimes I submit stuff to rugbyleagueproject.org. If I'm unsure about player bios I may ask David Middleton. Don't lack in books either. Plus butting heads has gotten exhausting. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- We're not staff, we're volunteers- and blocks are not a punishment, but a means of preventing disruption. You are blocked, not banned, those are different things. What I want to hear is how you will handle editing disputes that will invariably arise. You can't just ignore them. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well what I'm sick of is other users who are involved in the same editing disputes get away with them unpunished. I get blocked for now months on end and they get to continue editing as though they did nothing wrong. How am I supposed to not get frustrated by that? A bit of consistency would be nice. No amount of common sense reasoning I attempt to provide in edit summaries, like with misguided home and away game assignments, gets given even a first thought. 99 times out of 100 my edits get overruled because of past reputation, not on how useful the contributions may or may not be. So why bother even getting involved in disputes at all? 220.236.126.177 (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, when they want to do it. Some inconsistency is inevitable. We can only address what is in front of us. If you have grievances with the behavior of other users, there are proper forums to request that be addressed. You can only control your behavior, which is why we are asking how you will react to future disputes. If this sort of project isn't your cup of tea and/or you don't wish to invest the time needed to work on disputes, there's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't make you a bad person, as this isn't for everyone. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well for starters you can stop blocking me over such minute non-issues. Obviously I will keep investing time into researching and stat logging for rugby league like I have done for the last 15 years not even for work but as a hobby. Disputes never end up ending well from my perspective which is why I'm trying to tell you I'd rather just leave them well enough alone going forward. But understand that if somebody is being condescending towards me I'm going to have something to say about it. I'm within my rights to attempt to justify my contributions to this website but again, more often than not is to my detriment. I obviously don't have as much say in matters as I think. That aside I've been very lucky as a fan of the sport to have met hall of famers, them giving up a few minutes of their time, rugby league holds a place in my life. It always will. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/1173609156 is not "justifying your contributions". It's responding to an overly personalized content concern by throwing a purely personal attack against the editor who voiced them, and reverting their contribution with no other justification than personal revenge. This is not "within your rights" and I recommend declining the appeal at this point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please do not decline it. Have I not served more than enough time blocked already? 220.236.126.177 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/1173609156 is not "justifying your contributions". It's responding to an overly personalized content concern by throwing a purely personal attack against the editor who voiced them, and reverting their contribution with no other justification than personal revenge. This is not "within your rights" and I recommend declining the appeal at this point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well for starters you can stop blocking me over such minute non-issues. Obviously I will keep investing time into researching and stat logging for rugby league like I have done for the last 15 years not even for work but as a hobby. Disputes never end up ending well from my perspective which is why I'm trying to tell you I'd rather just leave them well enough alone going forward. But understand that if somebody is being condescending towards me I'm going to have something to say about it. I'm within my rights to attempt to justify my contributions to this website but again, more often than not is to my detriment. I obviously don't have as much say in matters as I think. That aside I've been very lucky as a fan of the sport to have met hall of famers, them giving up a few minutes of their time, rugby league holds a place in my life. It always will. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, when they want to do it. Some inconsistency is inevitable. We can only address what is in front of us. If you have grievances with the behavior of other users, there are proper forums to request that be addressed. You can only control your behavior, which is why we are asking how you will react to future disputes. If this sort of project isn't your cup of tea and/or you don't wish to invest the time needed to work on disputes, there's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't make you a bad person, as this isn't for everyone. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well what I'm sick of is other users who are involved in the same editing disputes get away with them unpunished. I get blocked for now months on end and they get to continue editing as though they did nothing wrong. How am I supposed to not get frustrated by that? A bit of consistency would be nice. No amount of common sense reasoning I attempt to provide in edit summaries, like with misguided home and away game assignments, gets given even a first thought. 99 times out of 100 my edits get overruled because of past reputation, not on how useful the contributions may or may not be. So why bother even getting involved in disputes at all? 220.236.126.177 (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- We're not staff, we're volunteers- and blocks are not a punishment, but a means of preventing disruption. You are blocked, not banned, those are different things. What I want to hear is how you will handle editing disputes that will invariably arise. You can't just ignore them. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- (Regarding other appeals, there are some in the history of this talk page.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're waiting for me to say. I've been banned for more than long enough (could be seen as excessive), not sure when enough punishment is enough to whoever is in charge of these decisions. I know a lot of staff here don't think kindly of me nor do they have to. I do my best to contribute to other sites, sometimes I submit stuff to rugbyleagueproject.org. If I'm unsure about player bios I may ask David Middleton. Don't lack in books either. Plus butting heads has gotten exhausting. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- What other appeals have you made? It's not enough to say you will just leave things alone and it's not worth it, there is always the chance an edit will be disputed. We need to know how you will handle this. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd agree that to save any more unwanted petty fighting I'm just going to leave it well enough alone. Also you're the only person I've talked to that hasn't automatically denied an unban appeal. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at Special:Diff/1173768589, the underlying issue is not specific to the List of National Rugby League records. The issue is a disagreement about mathematics, and your ability to correctly round numbers. For example, 7000/9 is closer to "777.78" than to "777.77". Both are inaccurate, but the latter is worse. Do you agree? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
220.236.126.177 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reopening unblock appeal on the grounds that the amount of time served blocked has gotten out of hand. Perhaps you missed the point? 220.236.126.177 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2023 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
220.236.126.177 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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.
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=Yes I was blocked for letting personal vendettas interfere with what Wikipedia is principally for. By definition of site rules it's disruptive. My conflicts in edit summaries go against the trust and good faith expected of voluntary contributors. Going forward if something I submit as an edit is deemed not useful there is obviously nothing I can do about it and will have to move on. [[Special:Contributions/220.236.126.177|220.236.126.177]] ([[User talk:220.236.126.177#top|talk]]) 13:41, 6 September 2023 (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=Yes I was blocked for letting personal vendettas interfere with what Wikipedia is principally for. By definition of site rules it's disruptive. My conflicts in edit summaries go against the trust and good faith expected of voluntary contributors. Going forward if something I submit as an edit is deemed not useful there is obviously nothing I can do about it and will have to move on. [[Special:Contributions/220.236.126.177|220.236.126.177]] ([[User talk:220.236.126.177#top|talk]]) 13:41, 6 September 2023 (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=Yes I was blocked for letting personal vendettas interfere with what Wikipedia is principally for. By definition of site rules it's disruptive. My conflicts in edit summaries go against the trust and good faith expected of voluntary contributors. Going forward if something I submit as an edit is deemed not useful there is obviously nothing I can do about it and will have to move on. [[Special:Contributions/220.236.126.177|220.236.126.177]] ([[User talk:220.236.126.177#top|talk]]) 13:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
May I make a guess? The dispute was about mathematics, so you lack any way of arguing for your position when it's mathematically incorrect. In this situation – being objectively wrong – you have been reverted in an unfriendly way. What currrently distinguishes you from editors who don't get blocked in this situation is that you, contrary to them, are completely unwilling to admit that the unfriendly revert was correct. You have been wronged by incivility and now refuse to address the incorrect-ness of the content. You go as far as claiming there'd be no policy-compliant option for you to take. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Okay. If it's admission you want, my maths was incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.126.177 (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I personally have no horse in this race. I'm fine with an inaccuracy of less than 0.01%, even a systematic one, in tables about something as unimportant and uninteresting as sports results. I personally don't need admission, but from what I can see, in the dispute at hand, there was actually a mathematical inaccuracy being corrected (again, by less than 0.01%). The correction was unfriendly and personal (diff). It included content not affected by the inaccuracy.
- But as I can now refer to the inaccuracy as what it is with your agreement, I think we've actually made noticeable progress. Here's my actual point:
- People will behave in ways they shouldn't towards you, and your risk of an unfriendly and excessive response is higher due to the lack of an account. It shouldn't be this way, but it is. Your contributions will appear in practically everyone's Special:RecentChanges and similar tools even if they apply rigid filters to ignore likely-good edits. Yours will always be likely-bad in many eyes. This admittedly won't change in the short term even if you decide to create an account, as new accounts are similarly suspicious, vulnerable and targeted by patrollers.
- People will revert your contributions when you're right, and people will revert your contributions when you're wrong, and people will especially revert everything you did if anything was wrong with the whole package. One click on the "rollback" link is all it takes, and when in doubt, as you have experienced, it's going to be used. Shouldn't be this way, but is.
- You can respond in two main ways when this happens (and it will, again and again):
- Focusing on the content, remaining civil, providing factual arguments if available or disengaging if not available. Perhaps even if available – that's the approach you currently promise to take, always.
- What you did.
- There is one scenario you haven't addressed yet, and that's the main one the reviewers seem to be looking for: Your edit has been reverted despite being correct, it wasn't the first time that this happened, moving on has failed, perhaps you're being followed and reverted again and again. Wikipedia offers multiple ways to deal with such a situation, and you haven't described them yet. You may find it unlikely that you'll ever use them, but the reviewers find it likely that you'll need them, and you need to show that you at least know how you could resolve a dispute whenever you can't just disengage from the conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Look, I have to give thanks when it's due. You've been incredibly patient, open eared and reasonable to this. You don't have to be giving up your time to deal with this yet here you are. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see I don't handle conflict so well, which is why it would be better for everybody if I stopped instigating or getting involved in disputes flat out. Feels like it's far too late to have a clean slate. Whether I think my reasonings for some edits are correct vs. them being correct by the definition of the articles involved and Wikipedia guidelines are two different kettles of fish. I don't like being labeled a serial pest but that ship has sailed. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is very kind, thank you for the warm feedback. Regarding a clean state, if this block is lifted (or expires), you'd be welcome to create an account, would not be required to disclose your previous identity (revealing one's IP address is never required) and could edit while completely avoiding disputes. The only thing you shouldn't do with an account is to re-join conflicts you had been a part of as an unregistered user. If this type of clean start is interesting to you, you'll be able to take it in a year the latest, no matter how the appeals go. During an active block, you may not edit, however, not even with a different IP address (block evasion). Please keep the clean start option and this requirement in mind, whatever happens to the unblock request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- PS: The Task Center is full of ideas unrelated to previous edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've just come off of 4 months worth of being blocked in addition to last year serving a *six* month consecutive block, is it really necessary to enforce 12 more? The NRL finals are just about to kick off, there will be transfers to cover for next year in the 2024 season article which I keep logged in a template for publishing when they're officially announced. I'm yet to file a single successful unblock appeal. But I also have yet to go about an appeal in the correct manner, which I will also admit to. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Continue to await a resolution to the ongoing unblock appeal 220.236.126.177 (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Would like to know why there's been a delay in my block being lifted 220.236.126.177 (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- There's no (unusual) delay, just a lack of administrators patrolling CAT:RFU who, having a quick look at the existing discussion, suddenly become interested in unblocking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Will you please lift the block so I can continue editing before the grand final? 220.236.126.177 (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- There's no (unusual) delay, just a lack of administrators patrolling CAT:RFU who, having a quick look at the existing discussion, suddenly become interested in unblocking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is very kind, thank you for the warm feedback. Regarding a clean state, if this block is lifted (or expires), you'd be welcome to create an account, would not be required to disclose your previous identity (revealing one's IP address is never required) and could edit while completely avoiding disputes. The only thing you shouldn't do with an account is to re-join conflicts you had been a part of as an unregistered user. If this type of clean start is interesting to you, you'll be able to take it in a year the latest, no matter how the appeals go. During an active block, you may not edit, however, not even with a different IP address (block evasion). Please keep the clean start option and this requirement in mind, whatever happens to the unblock request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Look, I have to give thanks when it's due. You've been incredibly patient, open eared and reasonable to this. You don't have to be giving up your time to deal with this yet here you are. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see I don't handle conflict so well, which is why it would be better for everybody if I stopped instigating or getting involved in disputes flat out. Feels like it's far too late to have a clean slate. Whether I think my reasonings for some edits are correct vs. them being correct by the definition of the articles involved and Wikipedia guidelines are two different kettles of fish. I don't like being labeled a serial pest but that ship has sailed. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)