→Dance Again World Tour and {{user|Alxthss}}: temporal context |
|||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
This really does seem to have been a case of one warrior vs. a group of four editors that had hammered out a consensus. What make you decide that Status had been edit warring? He certainly was reverting, but was doing so in alignment with multiple other editors, explaining the reasons that he had done so, and communicating on talk pages. There's a boundary between enforcing consensus and tag-team edit-warring that can be hard to draw sometimes, but I think you drew the line in the wrong place this time.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 03:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC) |
This really does seem to have been a case of one warrior vs. a group of four editors that had hammered out a consensus. What make you decide that Status had been edit warring? He certainly was reverting, but was doing so in alignment with multiple other editors, explaining the reasons that he had done so, and communicating on talk pages. There's a boundary between enforcing consensus and tag-team edit-warring that can be hard to draw sometimes, but I think you drew the line in the wrong place this time.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 03:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Feel free to unblock or otherwise adjust. Status has a track record of edit warring on [[WP:NOTNAS-STAR|NOTNAS-STAR]]-type articles and the post-block invitation to stay off Status' talk page is a bit over the top. That said, your judgement is fine with me. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 03:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC) |
:Feel free to unblock or otherwise adjust. Status has a track record of edit warring on [[WP:NOTNAS-STAR|NOTNAS-STAR]]-type articles and the post-block invitation to stay off Status' talk page is a bit over the top. That said, your judgement is fine with me. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 03:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Sorry but I had to come out of my Wikibreak (haven't edited since 23 August) to opine to this. You '''cannot''' block an editor with no sound reason provided by claiming that they were "edit warring", when in reality they were enforcing consensus that had previously been established. But worse, responding to the matter by saying "feel free to unblock" is quite ridiculous to be honest with you, and suggests you're aware that you are in the wrong. I think there's a possible [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] going on here, hoping that someone will investigate this further. [[User:Till|'''''Till''''']] 04:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Editor you blocked continues bad behavior == |
== Editor you blocked continues bad behavior == |
Revision as of 04:41, 4 September 2012
User:Maryland Pride
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Another ANI thread
Hi Toddst1, I thought you may want to review this one as you were the previous blocking admin. Cheers,
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Since you were the last admin will you please comment on this one way or another. Blethering Scot 17:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Aleenf1
Looking at the contributions of Aleenf1 (talk · contribs), it seems s/he was simply reverting an undiscussed change being made repeatedly by a multiple IP hopper who has made no attempt to communicate, not even in edit summaries. Based on this observation, I am inclined to unblock Aleenf1 (or reduce the duration) and semi-protect the article, if that's OK with you. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like I fucked up. I will apologize for Aleenf1. Thanks for pointing it out. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Supercomputer?
That's high praise for our state. Didn't know we had such a thing. Thank you for the block on that Truthteller. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's an impressive name for the state-run academic ISP. It looked more like a stuporcomputer network today. Toddst1 (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
JonFlaune
I think that the blocking note should be restored also this editor need explanation what is vandalism.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BLANKING allows removal of block notice. Feel free to explain Wp:Vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:ANI premature closure
I was only discussing something about it. What's wrong with that? Bleubeatle (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please bleubeatle I beg you for your own sake to let it go for the next few months as we all agreed on. Now you do it all over again and bring it up at the noticeboard, clearly disruptive and if you continue I will support a block for not following the agreements made concerning the article in question, technically you are already in contempt of the agreements. Im really disappointed with your behaviour. That is all I will say about that.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to thank Toddst1 for handling this situation so swiftly. But I am quite shocked that an ANI report was submitted and not one of the users listed where notified about it. Isn't the procedure suppose to be that the reporter (Bluebeatle) should have posted ANI noticed on CT Cooper, BabbaQ, and my own talk pages? That alone is disruptive underhandedness. I'm seriously considering making a request for an interaction ban or even a topic ban to be imposed against Bluebeatle as a result of his behaviour. Wesley Mouse 11:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it is. However, since it was such an obvious case of Bleubeatle (continuing) rejecting consensus and forum shopping, it seemed the most expedient solution was to shut the discussion down with a warning to Bleubeatle. I'd support an interaction ban but it would be bi-directional. Toddst1 (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't even know how to go about such interaction bans, but I'll see if things settle down with the warning that I've noticed you have issued the user. Does this mean Bleubeatle will no longer be permitted membership of WP:ESC, as all 4 of us are members of that project? I have informed the other two users too about the warning so that they can familiarise themselves with the conditions and prevent inadvertently wandering into unwanted territory. Hope I have done the correct thing there. Wesley Mouse 19:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it is. However, since it was such an obvious case of Bleubeatle (continuing) rejecting consensus and forum shopping, it seemed the most expedient solution was to shut the discussion down with a warning to Bleubeatle. I'd support an interaction ban but it would be bi-directional. Toddst1 (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to thank Toddst1 for handling this situation so swiftly. But I am quite shocked that an ANI report was submitted and not one of the users listed where notified about it. Isn't the procedure suppose to be that the reporter (Bluebeatle) should have posted ANI noticed on CT Cooper, BabbaQ, and my own talk pages? That alone is disruptive underhandedness. I'm seriously considering making a request for an interaction ban or even a topic ban to be imposed against Bluebeatle as a result of his behaviour. Wesley Mouse 11:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Dance Again World Tour and Alxthss (talk · contribs)
I look for help in this, as this is very recurrent and i'm not able to solve this. Look, this user, Alxthss has been editing against consensus on the page Dance Again World Tour adding dates from another separate tour by Lopez, claiming that they are the same. Several users, including me, have reached the conclusion that those dates doesn't belong to the article bu to their respective tour. SO, this user has been adding the dates constantly, and so far has done this than 5 times in the last days. Another admin, Worm That Turned, protected the page and the problem stopped. I adviced the user on his talk page to gain consensus before adding the dates and he just deleted what i wrote. As I, along with several users have tried to talk to him unsuccessfully, i ask your advice on what can I do to solve this dispute. Should I go to DRN? Or there is another method to solve this? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Two warriors blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, i wan't asking or making reference on blocking users. Also, Status wasn't warring against Alx, because if that were true, then you'd block me and Tomica either. I considered that a warn or other measue on Alx's and Status' talk page was way better. Also, a 72 block for Status is quite high, IMO, considering that what both Status, Tomica and me were doing was going with consensus, something that Alx didn't. SO, technically, the only user warring was Alx. I'm not telling that Alx was the only one to be blocked, I'd prefer none of them being blocked. Although, i'd have preffered another admin to block them, but what is doen is done. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
This really does seem to have been a case of one warrior vs. a group of four editors that had hammered out a consensus. What make you decide that Status had been edit warring? He certainly was reverting, but was doing so in alignment with multiple other editors, explaining the reasons that he had done so, and communicating on talk pages. There's a boundary between enforcing consensus and tag-team edit-warring that can be hard to draw sometimes, but I think you drew the line in the wrong place this time.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to unblock or otherwise adjust. Status has a track record of edit warring on NOTNAS-STAR-type articles and the post-block invitation to stay off Status' talk page is a bit over the top. That said, your judgement is fine with me. Toddst1 (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but I had to come out of my Wikibreak (haven't edited since 23 August) to opine to this. You cannot block an editor with no sound reason provided by claiming that they were "edit warring", when in reality they were enforcing consensus that had previously been established. But worse, responding to the matter by saying "feel free to unblock" is quite ridiculous to be honest with you, and suggests you're aware that you are in the wrong. I think there's a possible conflict of interest going on here, hoping that someone will investigate this further. Till 04:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Editor you blocked continues bad behavior
Hey Todd,
You recently blocked User:JonFlaune for 24 hours for edit warring and violating 1RR on a contentious article (Rachel Corrie).
He has continued with further bad behavior.
- Removes referened content and reliable media outlets like The Telegraph, with the edit summary of "Fixing POV." In other words, reinserting his/her biased POV, which was documented on the Edit Warring thread.
- Harasses me on my talk page by giving me a "warning," saying that my revert was "vandalism." It was quickly removed by another editor who recognized it wasn't vandalism. But now I'm subjected to more drama from here.
- Evidently upset that I contributed to getting him blocked, he WP:WIKIHOUND me here - disagreeing with me on the talk page of an article he has NEVER edited.
Perhaps a longer block from I-P articles is necessary, in my opinion...
Thanks. --Activism1234 17:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just one more thing... Would it be possible for this NPOV discussion that JonFlaune opened up against me right before he was blocked to get closed, as the editor who filed it has been blocked for edit warring and his behavior against me? I don't think it's necessary to stay open, as it was just needless drama by a blocked, upset editor. Thanks. --Activism1234 17:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Me
What do you have against me. All I do is edit airports and airlines and all the sudden you come in. That guy called me an idiot, that is a personal attack and he called another user a bastard. And that edit at Southwest Airlines was because that info is simply not needed and I told him that already. If you think I "own" Southwest Airlines look at Alaska Airlines and some users, look at SJU airport. You are clearly stalking me so I would appreciate it if you would stop because it starting to seem like you are bullying me. Kairportflier (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's a difference between WP:HOUND and following up on a previous block - which is what I'm doing. Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thats helps. On another note you have looked at all my bad sides but you haven't acknowledged some of my good edits which is the best way to help someone improve. If you look at Southwest Airlines page from January and look at it now it has so much more fluid information and is much more organized. I have also contributed to wikiairports and wikiairlines.Kairportflier (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)