Hello
You may be getting a bit over-eager with something like this. Most folks prefer to tend to their own talk pages themselves. I can appreciate the sentiment, but just thought I might mention it. — Ched : ? 21:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- So, WP:BOLD is extinct?
- Really, "you're not an admin" is annoying [1].
- It drives against core principles.
- Was that a good edit? If an admin did it, would it have been reverted? Why not?
- See also [2]. Do you really think that all those messages were helping? I didn't remove anything; just tried to get things back on track.
- Guess why I'm not a registered, active user any more. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was just a suggestion. I would have likely said the same exact thing to an admin. too. (I'd have emailed it, but that's not an option for IP addresses.) No slight or offense was intended at all. — Ched : ? 21:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I know. And I was not offended by your comment; I just find it sad that the 'admins are special' attitude is so endemic in the community; I think even you have caught a bit of it.
- In theory, it's a good edit. So was this; If you have 10 mins, see also User talk:88.104.17.92 (me, a couple days ago).
- Wikipedia is collapsing under its own bureaucratic nonsense, which is why I have (ok, mostly) given up on it. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was just a suggestion. I would have likely said the same exact thing to an admin. too. (I'd have emailed it, but that's not an option for IP addresses.) No slight or offense was intended at all. — Ched : ? 21:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
March 2013
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please explain the reason for my block, so I can appeal it. I don't believe I have made any disruptive edits. Thanks. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, please post the following to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ANI;
"I have now been blocked from editing; I have no idea why. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)"
Thanks. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
88.104.27.2 (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=I think I may have been blocked in error, 'collateral damage' when a well-known-sock was disrupting things. I tried to explain that, but was blocked... please, check my contribs. I don't think there's anything I've done wrong, so I'm not sure how to phrase this appeal... help? [[Special:Contributions/88.104.27.2|88.104.27.2]] ([[User talk:88.104.27.2#top|talk]]) 00:24, 20 March 2013 (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=I think I may have been blocked in error, 'collateral damage' when a well-known-sock was disrupting things. I tried to explain that, but was blocked... please, check my contribs. I don't think there's anything I've done wrong, so I'm not sure how to phrase this appeal... help? [[Special:Contributions/88.104.27.2|88.104.27.2]] ([[User talk:88.104.27.2#top|talk]]) 00:24, 20 March 2013 (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=I think I may have been blocked in error, 'collateral damage' when a well-known-sock was disrupting things. I tried to explain that, but was blocked... please, check my contribs. I don't think there's anything I've done wrong, so I'm not sure how to phrase this appeal... help? [[Special:Contributions/88.104.27.2|88.104.27.2]] ([[User talk:88.104.27.2#top|talk]]) 00:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- [edit conflict] I'm very confused what's going on; I can't remember the last time I saw someone blocked without warning except in cases of blatant vandalism and other things that demonstrate obvious bad faith. I don't see what you've done to deserve blocking (your comments on Seb___'s talk weren't blockable, and nothing else appears to be problematic), let alone without warning. Why didn't you already file an unblock request? Something like "unblock|I don't believe I have made any disruptive edits and I wasn't told what I'd done wrong" should work fine. I'm going to ask Bwilkins to comment here, and I'll copy your message to the ANI thread at AN. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks!
- It's probably just a misunderstanding. I was trying to help with the ongoing problem, but everything was reverted before I had any chance... and then I was blocked.
- Let me know if there's anything I can do to help sort it out. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your point about collateral damage makes sense, since a disruptive sock would be blocked without warning; perhaps you got misidentified? Although why would "disruptive editing" be the block reason, rather than "block evasion"? I guess we'll have to wait for Bwilkins to comment. Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Help? Edit warring on one user's talkpage, wholly inappropriate AIV postings, unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere ... all disruptive (edit conflict X3) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps some of his other edits were disruptive (he's clearly not new here) but the AIV posting was appropriate. Dingypony (talk · contribs) really did need to be blocked as a troll. The "inappropriate" comment in the AIV report was a quote from Dingy. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW - I don't consider any of the conversations I've had with IP88 troubling. (here and User talk:Ched). I actually agree that IP editors, and even registered non-admins. do tend to get the short end of the stick at times. Maybe I'm dipping into the AGF well one too many times, but I don't see anything extremely troubling either. I admit that I haven't really examined everything, but TY to Nyttend for the note to BMW. — ChedZILLA 00:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Review pretty much all of the IP's contributions (other than his talkpage) today - you'll get the right picture (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- [ec] This IP has only one AIV post, and it was Dingypony; yes, he was already blocked, so the "Requests for further sanctions against a blocked user (e.g., talk page, e-mail blocks) should go to AN/I, as a bot automatically removes accounts here that are blocked" warning should have been heeded, but that's a single incident of not obeying something that's easily missed. We only make an issue of that if someone edit-wars with the bot. After reviewing this IP's contributions to lots of different pages, I see edits that try (sometimes not the best way, but in good faith) to help communication and to participate properly, and I even see a calm discussion of copyright. The only little bit of problem is at Seb's talk, and that's only because he kept trying to get Seb to explain the reversion when Seb (as far as I can see) refused to reply. It's far from disruption. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Review pretty much all of the IP's contributions (other than his talkpage) today - you'll get the right picture (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
---
- "Edit warring on one user's talkpage"? No, I did not.
- I asked why they'd reverted my (valid) AIV report [3] and they reverted it [4].
- I undid that, just the once [5] and they reverted again with no explanation again [6]
- I asked them to calm down [7] and they reverted that [8].
- I posted on AN (because ANI was protected) and gave a statuary AN notification [9] which was also reverted [10].
- "wholly inappropriate AIV postings" - Dingypony (talk · contribs) had been blocked, and had then written "Wikipedia's Judeophobic Islamic supremacist bias" [11], so I posted a request at AIV to "Please revoke talk, DENY.". I think that was appropriate?
- "unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere"? What's that about - can you please show me what I'm supposed to have done?
- "Review pretty much all of the IP's contributions (other than his talkpage) today - you'll get the right picture" - can you please show any diff that indicates I've been disruptive? I've only made 63 edits, so it's not much to check - I think they're all 'good'?
Thanks, 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
---
A review of my edits - my entire editing history;
- I made comments about an unblock request on AN, discussing the need for users to show they understood the reason for their block before unblocking. [12] [13]
- I looked at talk-page comments on Marco Polo and made some suggestions for improving it (I couldn't edit it, because of semi prot) [14] oh, and I removed some vandalism [15] then suggestions [16] [17] [18] [19]
- Asked Ched about the unblock of 'Evangp' [22]
- Back to Evan [33]
- Fixed a typo in passing [36]
- Got into discussions about how best to deal with Headstrong4ever [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]
...I'm getting bored now, but the rest... I added more about copyright on Jimbo's page, spoke more about blocking notices, tried to help fix an article... then - when I wanted to post on ANI - ran into the semi-prot of it, and tried to help out with that.
That is all I have done. It's not much, but - what of this is "abuse of editing privileges", which warrants a block with no warnings at all?
I can't appeal a block if I don't understand what I've done wrong.
If my block is valid, can you please tell me what I've done wrong. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)