This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What are You talking about. This IP is used by many people and is no vandalism here that I can see. 141.6.8.72 ( talk) 12:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bardcom, just looking over the BI issue again, and as usual some of your edits are valid, some we could argue about, but there is one that stands out a mile as being, IMHO, completely wrong. I refer to the Radio 4 UK Theme. How do you know that Irish fishermen use RTE for the shipping forecast? I don't know if RTE provides a shipping forecast (I expect they do) but the BBC shipping forecast is for all, regardless of nationality, and if I was a betting man, I'd put money on the likelihood of a large number of Irish fishermen listening to it (and other nationalities undoubtedly do as well), but that would be OR if included here, a bit like your assertion. In the context of shipping areas the British Isles is admirably suited to describe the extent of their relevance. We're talking geography here, and the shipping areas completely surround all parts of the BI. If there's any subject where BI is correct that the Shipping Forecast must surely be it. I'll revert to BI in the article unless you can come up with a much better reason why it shouldn't be used. CarterBar ( talk) 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (Move this to the relevant Talk page if you want). CarterBar ( talk) 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>Lets take those refs one-by-one. The first one (Met Office) is unfortunately an educational page, simplified for its target audience, secondary school pupils. It takes about the coastal waters forecast around the BI, but this includes North and South Uitsire, Southeast Iceland, Biscay, Fitzroy and Trafalgar, none of which would come anywhere close to the WP definition of BI. The Met Office may consider Biscay to be 'around the BI', but unfortunately it doesn't wash on WP.
The second page is a user home page quick reference, rather than an academic treatise. Unfortunately, given the weight of other evidence available, it wouldn't stand up to the requirements of WP:V. It is very close to being a self published source as the last 2 blogs most definitely are. But the page is more of an eclectic collection of useful met sources covering the British Isles. But it goes much further than that, including met charts for the Caribbean and North Atlantic. Not a definitive sources.
Sorry but blogs 3 and 4 don't count. I made a factual edit to the Radio 4 Theme article. I removed any reference to an assumed range for the broadcasts. It is silly to contend that listeners need to be in a particular geographical location. The propogation of radio waves does not follow fixed rules. Anyone who can hear the forecast can use the information. Crispness ( talk) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
You have now reverted the GENUKI article 4 times today to remove British Isles from the text. Please see this Wikipedia:3RR#I have violated 3RR. What do I do? and I recommend you undo your last revert, otherwise I will report it on the Wikipedia Administrators Notice board. I have reverted your edit 3 times only. 86.27.107.230 ( talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Bardcom. EmpireForever ( talk) 10:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
RE: "Removed wikilinks from direct quotation as per suggested guidelines - MOSQUOTE" Do you have a link to 'MOSQUOTE' please?
You're so right and you've explained it perfectly. Sorry for seeming dense. I added a new link on Dub for the nickname, but I left the book since "The Dubs" is part of the title. What do you think? SlackerMom ( talk) 18:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't open the discussion myself, as I'm hoping to encourage the others to do so. That's also the reason why I didn't revert all of the anon edits. PS- all you guys should be bringing these BI usage disputes to a conclusion. GoodDay ( talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bardcom, I'd like to ask for your support in adding British Isles to articles such as Ireland (one of the two main islands of), and River Shannon (longest river in). Thanks. TharkunColl ( talk) 23:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You've broken 3RR at frost fairs [6]. Please self-revert asap William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
May I ask why you keep removing references to the "British Isles"? Not trying to start anything here, I am just curious as it is such an odd thing to do. 1 != 2 22:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Most enlightening. 1 != 2 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your campaign to remove "BI". And please don't add spurious refs to justify your doing so. [7] simply adds some stuff that doesn't at all justfy the pointless geogrqaphical change you've made William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)And also for the record, Will has just stated "he is adopting a politically motivated POV" on Talk:River Thames frost fairs. This is over the line, and a personally insulting comment. I am not politically motivated, and this comment is in breach of wikipedia policy and etiquette. Yet another warning to Will - if I wasn't blocked, I would place it on your Talk page. Stop making personal comments, especially ones that I have objected to previously. If you don't, you may be blocked. -- Bardcom ( talk) 16:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Another, Will has stated his isn't a genuine good-faith attempt to improve wiki; its POV pushing be to try to remove a term he dislikes for political reasons.. Does anybody care about WP:AGF anymore? ad hominen attacks anyone? Or can an admin pretty much get away with saying and doing anything the like? Here - [8] -- Bardcom ( talk) 16:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bardcom, This is all getting out of hand, on both sides. Let's just call a stop to this, at least until we see what happens at the RfArb. Will you agree to a moratorium on any further BI-related changes for now? I will, if you agree, and I'm sure other editors will as well CarterBar ( talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Here's a pretty good reference. It's a book called The Climate of Europe, Past, Present, and Future - Natural and Man-induced Climatic Changes: A European perspective and published by the European commission. Page 46. Here's a link: [9]] It mentions that the winter of 1683-4 appears as the coldest in the central England record since 1659, though it was probably equalled by the winter of 1607-8 (which may have exceeded it in the Netherlands and Germany). -- Bardcom ( talk) 20:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing/Archives/2008 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not realise I had 3rr'ed. I made the edit and went out. Had I realized, I would have reverted immediately. If unblocked (or a reduced block), I will keep away from editting this article for 24hours anyway. Apologies. Also, perhaps I did not 3rr as the 3rd edit was not a revert but an attempt to add references to geographic regions as a compromise. Thank you. Also, there was no warning given to me. The warning provided in the 3rr report is 6 days old from a different article.
Decline reason:
Oh c'mon. I will keep away from editting this article for 24hours anyway - and then what? Back to edit-warring? You must understand that 3RR is only an electric fence, not inalienable right to revert 3 times per day or be otherwise disruptive. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 17:25, 13 July 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
-- Bardcom ( talk) 14:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
All of your edits were reverts. All removed the key phrase "British Isles" which is the key point in all of this. And you're fully aware of all of this William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
What he means is you reverted part of the page, even if you then added another bit, and that counts as a revert. Confusing/annoying I know.:) P.S. One only needs to view your contribs to see you have a thing about the phrase 'British Isles' which predominantly leads to you making an edit that removes it from somewhere. Why not edit about something you've seen on telly or eaten or something instead, or hit Special:Random ? Sticky Parkin 23:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop being silly. You cannot remove the wrods "British Isles" from all of wikipedia and it is vandalism to try it William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing/Archives/2008 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Personal attack by an administrator, and not assuming good faith. Background: this administrator reverted another editors edit [ here] with the comment Thanks. What you're missing is Bardcom's one-man campaign to remove the words "British Isles" from wikipedia., and pointed to the ongoing RfA. I placed a warning on the editors Talk page, as I would for any editor that makes a personal comment to claim I am on a one-man campaign, etc, and any insinuation that my edits are driven by any motive other than to make this encyclopedia better. TThe reason given for this block is "vandalism". No warning were given, no discussion took place. This block is also an abuse of admin rights and policies.
Decline reason:
I believe this is an appropriate use of the blocking facility. If the removal of British Isles is subject of a RfA, then it should not be performed without the backing of the community - it's simple courtesty. If an administrator has also called for you to curtail those actions, it should be respected. It's a 3 hour block - not the end of the world. Take it as it's meant - to reduce distruption to Wikipedia. — -- Jza84 Talk 19:20, 12 July 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(outdent) Anyone? -- Bardcom ( talk) 18:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I honestly say this in good faith, Bardcom - you've got to ease up on these Warnings you send out - especially the "you will be blocked" bit in bold. You've got the whole "ad hominen" thing out of perspective - the admin may have seen it as provocative behaviour. I suspect though you are just mistaken about how far you can take "ad hominen". When you edit as you do, you have to roll with a few punches - and your idea of "ad hominem" is just unworkably sensitised IMO. If we all acted on the things you have done, we would see nothing around but warnings from each other, adn not just around here but across Wikipedia too.
I certainly agree that admins should give their own warnings and not step in cold - but when I was blocked the admin ironically read some of -and referred to- your unecessary 'Warnings' on my Talk page, so I'm not sure what to say to you there!! I could put it this way -I got an out-of-the-blue '48 hours' for no concrete reason at all - at least you've just got 3 hours, whatever it was about! I didn't even know they could go that low! Sheesh.- Matt Lewis ( talk) 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Comment to Jza84. Unfortunately, none of you explanation makes sense. First of all, the RfA is very explicitly *not* about the removal of the term "British Isles". Secondly, are you in effect asking for me to check my editting with "the community" *before* making the edits? Thirdly, no administrator called for me to curtail these actions. Finally, it may only be a 3 hour block, but it's still wrong, and an abuse of admin powers. This action is so unjustified, and being backed up by other admins, I've lost whatever small shred of faith I have. I've done *nothing* wrong. -- Bardcom ( talk) 20:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing/Archives/2008 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Reasons given for upholding the block are not true. It's important to maintain integrity on Wikipedia, and to show that admins do not abuse their powers. For that to happen, blocks must not be seen to further a personal cause of an admin, or as a weapong wielded by an admin. I'm asking that this block is lifted because I did not vandalise anywhere on Wikipedia - being the reason given. The length of time of this block is irrelevant, the point is that it is an abuse of Admin powers.
Decline reason:
First, this was a good block to prevent further disruption, second, the block has already expired, and third, the appropriate place to bring this is to the attention of the blocking admin, then WP:ANI if there are still questions - which I see has already been done. Dreadstar † 21:09, 12 July 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
-- Bardcom ( talk) 20:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)It's now clear to me that if admins can bully and block like this, it's a project I don't want to have any part of. If admins can review another's behaviour can give incorrect reasons as to why it should be upheld, it seems that the duty of care for behaviour is far lower than the duty of care for content. That's always been the problem here.... I've no stomach for this any longer. A big "Thank you" to the good people I've met - keep up the good work. -- Bardcom ( talk) 20:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm worried that you're being goaded into an edit war over the British Isles stuff. I'm a complete stranger, but it would be a shame to see you get in trouble over this. Go for a walk, maybe grab a pint somewhere? Actually, I might do that myself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pldms ( talk • contribs) 13:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you did not get the point with your last two blocks, but you need to stop removing "British Isles" and reverting people when they disagree. I see that you have done 4 [16] [17] [18] [19] reverts on that subject just today, and countless others in the last week.
If people revert you then it is your job to reach a consensus on a talk page, you can't just go over a list of articles you have changed and revert them every day. You do seem to be on a campaign, you do little else here other than remove "British Isles" from articles, and while your reasons vary your actions are rock solid.
You are more than welcome to argue your point on the talk page as long as you respect the consensus that develops. If you cannot convince the community of the value of your changes then they will not be accepted. If you can then they will be.
I am going to start considering multiple reverts by you on the same subject(British Isles) to be a form of edit warring even if they are spread across several pages. You need to stop edit warring your point across. Stubbornness is no way to win an academic debate. 1 != 2 13:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It is Bold, Revert, Discuss. It is not Bold, revert, revert back. Big difference. And also ThankunColl makes a very good point. 1 != 2 14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No gag, talk all you want. Don't make your point be reverting. If someone refuses to talk to you and continues to revert then follow the dispute resolution process, but don't just keep reverting. 1 != 2 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
And please stop templating William, he knows the rules better than you do and he is not breaking them one bit. Sending him warnings accomplished nothing. 1 != 2 13:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. I don't think William was making an unreasonable statement, your edit history supports it. 1 != 2 13:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, disagree as you may that was a quote from the policy, "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
The comment is about your actions, not you as a person. If you make actions that are disruptive then people can and will call you on it. It is a fact that your justifications to your actions sound contrived to fit the single goal of removing "British Isles" from articles. If we see something with feathers floating on the water making a quacking sound we call it a duck. 1 != 2 14:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I find it unlikely you will find an admin to enforce your interpretation of policy. 1 != 2 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any administrators taking your point of view there. I see ATren giving some advice about wording the same sentiments less abrasively, but that is not really an enforcement issue. While it could be more diplomatic it is not blatantly uncivil to the point of being a policy issue. 1 != 2 15:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
We cannot remove old blocks, and even if we could handfuls of admins reviewed that block and endorsed it. Your next block was endorsed by multiple admins also. If WMC did not block you for that behavior another admin would have anyways. The only repercussion you have received for giving that template was a polite request not to template people who have not really done anything wrong. 1 != 2 15:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Bardie- If you leave a polite, "hand written" request or message, which could be worded slightly similarly to the template, it won't annoy people so much or seem like you're templating them deliberately to disparage/patronise/annoy. Sticky Parkin 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Re [20]. Please stop wasting my time. I realise that you're patiently establishing a trail for some imaginary future RFC, but you've made your point now and can give up. If you'd also give up the anti-BI campaign, I'd be grateful William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I am away until Monday Night; I have been investigating Irish Weather recoreds on the internet; FYI William Molyneux did start recording Irish weather from 1684; unfortunately the records have now been lost. Lucian Sunday ( talk) 06:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The term "Great Britain" is a calque from French, where is was used to differentiate Britain from "Little Britain" (Britanny). It hardly ever occured in English until it was adopted by the Stuarts in 1603/1604 as part of their new title - "King of Great Britain". From 1707 it actually became the name of the state, and still forms part of the UK's official name today. Its use in English, therefore, is in origin purely political. There is a trend in Wikipedia to call the island by that name, but this is mistaken. The island is, and always has been, called simply "Britain" in normal English usage. That "Britain" is also often used as a synonym for the UK in no way compromises its original and normal meaning. I would suggest restricting "Great Britain" to political matters concerned with the British state as it was constituted from 1707 to 1801, and thereafter using "United Kingdom". For the period 1603 to 1707 it may also have some limited usage, in reference to the Stuart dynasty and related matters. It should not be used for any period before 1603, where simply "Britain" will suffice. Also, "Britain" should be used for the island and its people, divorced from matters to do with the state, up to the present day. TharkunColl ( talk) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Response to your suggestion on my Talk page. CarterBar ( talk) 10:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Bard, you are apparently not aware of the fact that some time back, arising from rows about the inclusion of the offensive term "BI" in 100% Irish articles a "treaty" was agreed which was that in general BI should not be added to Irish articles if it wasn't already there and/or if it wasn't absolutely necessary. Thus your argument (in an edit comment) that the issue is confined to *this* (Shannon) article is wrong. I'd ask you not to add the term to the Shannon article again. Thanks. Sarah777 ( talk) 22:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hebrides. Trouble is it's a crap reference. It's a Scottish Tourist Board site - What will they know about geology? Stroll on! No reference is better than a bad reference. I'm putting it back to what it was when I first came across this article, like last year. Mister Flash ( talk) 13:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
For keeping an eye out for disruptive edits, and dealing with such edits through the appropriate channels. You are brilliant! Johnpigg ( talk) 10:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC) |
-- HighKing ( talk) 08:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't you ever give up!! We've had this already with you, swapping out British Isles at GENUKI just because you don't like it. As I said last time, British Isles is the preferred term for people who know about these things, namely GENUKI and genealogy. Look here - quote from the website "The UK and Ireland are regarded, for the purposes of this Genealogical Information Service, as being made up of England, Ireland (i.e. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland), Wales, and Scotland, together with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Together, these constitute the British Isles - which is a geographical term for a group of islands lying off the north-west coast of mainland Europe. ". Now butt out, leave GENUKI alone and go and find something else to do. 82.14.71.91 ( talk) 13:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Since all Irish people were British in the 19th century, then almost all settlers on New Zealand were British (whether English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh). ðarkun coll 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this, but I noticed that you have not been notified about a thread on the Administrators' noticeboard as is customary. Please see this thread and comment as you wish. Thanks, Keeper ǀ 76 16:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing/Archives/2008 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I had already stopped editing an hour beforehand, and had posted this on the other editors Talk page calling for a cooling off. Further, one of the edits counted is a self-revert because I thought I had accidently 3RRed - this should not be counted. More on my Talk page
Decline reason:
While you did undo your last revert you then changed your mind and redid it [21]. The fact that you took a break gave no indication that you were going to stop edit warring as evidenced by your history of edit warring on this subject. You have edit warred over this before more than a few times and you have even been blocked for edit warring over this. This is a valid block, I was going to do it myself but was beaten to it. The other party was blocked too. Blocks for edit warring will only get longer as they repeat. — Chillum 19:24, 29 July 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
-- HighKing ( talk) 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
User:EmpireForever is an SPA that only reverts my edits (easy to check). He deliberately set out to goad me into an edit-war - and for a short while, and like an idiot, I obliged. But I recognized this - it took only an hour - but I realized the tactic being employed. His behaviour is deliberately designed to offend and to goad - for example referring to Irish as terrorists
here. (When I pointed this out, no action was taken!!!) I admit I got a rush of blood - but blocks should not be punitive, and given the circumstances and the insults, I think my pulling back from editing and remaining civil should count for something. I had posted this to
User:EmpireForever
here an hour before the block was imposed with the intention of leaving two articles in the state he left them in, and two articles in the state I left them in - in the interests of trying to be fair. Blocking is not meant to be punitive - and since I had already recognized that I was being drawn into an edit-war with the sole purpose of trying to get me blocked, and I had stopped - I am requesting that the block is lifted (or seeing as it's nearly 24 hours already and nobody has reviewed it) reduced - I had recognised the undesirable behaviour and had stopped.
I recognise that many considered my edits to be disputive behaviour in the past, and have been trying to work towards a more permanent solution. For example, here where TharkunColl suggested a "British Isles" project, and here with Ddstretch who suggested a workgroup and asked for references to be produced for a number of edits.
Finally another SPA targetting my edits has recently been created - User:LemonMonday . This editor is not acting in good faith.
-- HighKing ( talk) 13:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC) -- HighKing ( talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing, more than once I have told you that edit warring, specifically over one issue, will lead to blocks. I told you your edits were disruptive, you insisted they were not. If you keep acting the same way, you will keep getting blocked. I have seen this over and over, somebody just will not accept that their behavior is inappropriate and eventually they just stay blocked and feel they have been hard done by. I don't want to see that again, I would far rather see you take heed of the communities reaction to your actions and change. Chillum 19:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You say I have never justified the first block, but I have repeatedly pointed out that several admins reviewed that block and found it to be just fine. You are a repeat offender, you keep doing the same offense over and over. The events leading up to this block are nearly identical to the events leading to the last block, ie you were edit warring to remove the term "British Isles" from an article. Nothing in those diffs makes me involved, nothing in those diffs was not also said by other admins reviewing your first block. Chillum 19:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing/Archives/2008 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
With respect to Chillum, I request that an uninvolved admin please review and take into account the circumstances surrounding the period in question.
Decline reason:
This is your third block for the same thing. You have been given ample warning that edit warning is not allowed, you do not have to be rewarned in every dispute. Gaming the system by edit warring without stepping over the 3RR bounds is against the spirit of WP:3RR and is still disruptive. BJ Talk 20:32, 29 July 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Excuse my HighKing, but I am involved only in that I have asked you not to be disruptive and asked you not to edit war. The blocking policy makes it clear that have prior administrative interaction with a user does not make me involved. If you seek another admins review fine, but I am well within my remit to review this request. I think you will find that the other admin will see you violated 3RR in the precise same way as you did to get your prior block. To be frank I think it is more the answer I came to, not who I am that led you to reject my review. Chillum 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, Lemon was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, however when the blocking admin was not available to show evidence it was reversed. I have brought attention to those edits that indicate it is an account used to avoid a block [22]. Chillum 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you recognize that you violated 3RR? Do you recognize that violating 3RR leads to being blocked? Do you recognize that you do often make the same revert over many articles? What do you mean you had no chance to undo your edit? You did undo your edit, then you changed your mind and redid it. Regardless, I will leave your second unblock request to another admin. However I don't think you should be allowed a third. If you don't like the next review you need to just accept it regardless. Chillum 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The unblock request did not address your issues, because we don't deal with blocks based on the framing the user requests us to. We review unblocks in the framing of policy. If you look at WP:3RR you will see a list of exceptions, you will not see "someone baited me into doing it" in that list. The reason 3 different admins have come to the conclusion that this block was necessary should be an indication of that.
I fail to see which part of the review was inaccurate. This is the third block for the same thing, you did have ample warning. Regardless, I assure you I have not made up my mind about you, if your edits cease to be disruptive then I will have no issue with you. Please don't think this is in any way personal, I just have a strong respect for the idea of a neutral point of view and find accounts dedicated to a single goal to be contrary to that. Chillum 20:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, if you had read the page you would have seen that I have already said that the blocking policy says prior administrative interaction with a user does not make me involved. I have never been in any sort of content dispute with this user, my sole involvement has been to ask that the user not act in a disruptive fashion. I have read your interpretation of other events in the past and frankly I don't think you understand what administrators are.
If you can show me the policy and some diffs of my edits that shows me acting inappropriately then I will reconsider, not that it will change anything as yet another admin has endorsed this block. You seem to think that you can just say "This is a bad block" and simply disregard the fact that people the community have entrusted to interpret policy have found differently. You don't seem to care that a block stands up to scrutiny, you just insist on your own opinion. Well that is not how we work.
If you think my unblock review was in some way out of line then start and RFC, or post at WP:AN, or even drag me infront of arbcom. But I don't think it will get anywhere because I did not do anything wrong. Chillum 22:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I recently unblocked User:EmpireForever after he gave an undertaking not to edit war for the remaining duration of his block. If you would give a similar undertaking (i.e. to perform no reversions of plausibly good-faith content changes for the remaining duration of your block - subject to the normal exceptions of reverting obvious vandalism, copyright violations etc.) then I would be happy to unblock you. If you wish to give such an undertaking you should re-request unblocking, citing this note for the reviewing admin as I may not be online to unblock you personally. CIreland ( talk) 22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Blocking admin is willing to conditionally unblock with an undertaking from me to not edit war - I give this undertaking. See note on my Talk page.}}
--
HighKing (
talk)
22:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I unblocked first and was going to post the unblock notice second, but Jpgordon does it the other-way round. DDStretch (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing/Archives/2008 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been unblocked (see Talk page), but it seems that the IP address was also blocked and has not been unblocked. Can someone unblock the IP address. BTW, this is not a private IP address, so it might also affect other editors.
Decline reason:
You have to tell us the message on the edit screen when you try to edit; without that, we don't know which IP to unblock. — Golbez ( talk) 09:06, 30 July 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What are You talking about. This IP is used by many people and is no vandalism here that I can see. 141.6.8.72 ( talk) 12:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bardcom, just looking over the BI issue again, and as usual some of your edits are valid, some we could argue about, but there is one that stands out a mile as being, IMHO, completely wrong. I refer to the Radio 4 UK Theme. How do you know that Irish fishermen use RTE for the shipping forecast? I don't know if RTE provides a shipping forecast (I expect they do) but the BBC shipping forecast is for all, regardless of nationality, and if I was a betting man, I'd put money on the likelihood of a large number of Irish fishermen listening to it (and other nationalities undoubtedly do as well), but that would be OR if included here, a bit like your assertion. In the context of shipping areas the British Isles is admirably suited to describe the extent of their relevance. We're talking geography here, and the shipping areas completely surround all parts of the BI. If there's any subject where BI is correct that the Shipping Forecast must surely be it. I'll revert to BI in the article unless you can come up with a much better reason why it shouldn't be used. CarterBar ( talk) 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (Move this to the relevant Talk page if you want). CarterBar ( talk) 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>Lets take those refs one-by-one. The first one (Met Office) is unfortunately an educational page, simplified for its target audience, secondary school pupils. It takes about the coastal waters forecast around the BI, but this includes North and South Uitsire, Southeast Iceland, Biscay, Fitzroy and Trafalgar, none of which would come anywhere close to the WP definition of BI. The Met Office may consider Biscay to be 'around the BI', but unfortunately it doesn't wash on WP.
The second page is a user home page quick reference, rather than an academic treatise. Unfortunately, given the weight of other evidence available, it wouldn't stand up to the requirements of WP:V. It is very close to being a self published source as the last 2 blogs most definitely are. But the page is more of an eclectic collection of useful met sources covering the British Isles. But it goes much further than that, including met charts for the Caribbean and North Atlantic. Not a definitive sources.
Sorry but blogs 3 and 4 don't count. I made a factual edit to the Radio 4 Theme article. I removed any reference to an assumed range for the broadcasts. It is silly to contend that listeners need to be in a particular geographical location. The propogation of radio waves does not follow fixed rules. Anyone who can hear the forecast can use the information. Crispness ( talk) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
You have now reverted the GENUKI article 4 times today to remove British Isles from the text. Please see this Wikipedia:3RR#I have violated 3RR. What do I do? and I recommend you undo your last revert, otherwise I will report it on the Wikipedia Administrators Notice board. I have reverted your edit 3 times only. 86.27.107.230 ( talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Bardcom. EmpireForever ( talk) 10:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
RE: "Removed wikilinks from direct quotation as per suggested guidelines - MOSQUOTE" Do you have a link to 'MOSQUOTE' please?
You're so right and you've explained it perfectly. Sorry for seeming dense. I added a new link on Dub for the nickname, but I left the book since "The Dubs" is part of the title. What do you think? SlackerMom ( talk) 18:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't open the discussion myself, as I'm hoping to encourage the others to do so. That's also the reason why I didn't revert all of the anon edits. PS- all you guys should be bringing these BI usage disputes to a conclusion. GoodDay ( talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bardcom, I'd like to ask for your support in adding British Isles to articles such as Ireland (one of the two main islands of), and River Shannon (longest river in). Thanks. TharkunColl ( talk) 23:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You've broken 3RR at frost fairs [6]. Please self-revert asap William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
May I ask why you keep removing references to the "British Isles"? Not trying to start anything here, I am just curious as it is such an odd thing to do. 1 != 2 22:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Most enlightening. 1 != 2 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your campaign to remove "BI". And please don't add spurious refs to justify your doing so. [7] simply adds some stuff that doesn't at all justfy the pointless geogrqaphical change you've made William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)And also for the record, Will has just stated "he is adopting a politically motivated POV" on Talk:River Thames frost fairs. This is over the line, and a personally insulting comment. I am not politically motivated, and this comment is in breach of wikipedia policy and etiquette. Yet another warning to Will - if I wasn't blocked, I would place it on your Talk page. Stop making personal comments, especially ones that I have objected to previously. If you don't, you may be blocked. -- Bardcom ( talk) 16:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Another, Will has stated his isn't a genuine good-faith attempt to improve wiki; its POV pushing be to try to remove a term he dislikes for political reasons.. Does anybody care about WP:AGF anymore? ad hominen attacks anyone? Or can an admin pretty much get away with saying and doing anything the like? Here - [8] -- Bardcom ( talk) 16:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bardcom, This is all getting out of hand, on both sides. Let's just call a stop to this, at least until we see what happens at the RfArb. Will you agree to a moratorium on any further BI-related changes for now? I will, if you agree, and I'm sure other editors will as well CarterBar ( talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Here's a pretty good reference. It's a book called The Climate of Europe, Past, Present, and Future - Natural and Man-induced Climatic Changes: A European perspective and published by the European commission. Page 46. Here's a link: [9]] It mentions that the winter of 1683-4 appears as the coldest in the central England record since 1659, though it was probably equalled by the winter of 1607-8 (which may have exceeded it in the Netherlands and Germany). -- Bardcom ( talk) 20:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing/Archives/2008 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not realise I had 3rr'ed. I made the edit and went out. Had I realized, I would have reverted immediately. If unblocked (or a reduced block), I will keep away from editting this article for 24hours anyway. Apologies. Also, perhaps I did not 3rr as the 3rd edit was not a revert but an attempt to add references to geographic regions as a compromise. Thank you. Also, there was no warning given to me. The warning provided in the 3rr report is 6 days old from a different article.
Decline reason:
Oh c'mon. I will keep away from editting this article for 24hours anyway - and then what? Back to edit-warring? You must understand that 3RR is only an electric fence, not inalienable right to revert 3 times per day or be otherwise disruptive. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 17:25, 13 July 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
-- Bardcom ( talk) 14:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
All of your edits were reverts. All removed the key phrase "British Isles" which is the key point in all of this. And you're fully aware of all of this William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
What he means is you reverted part of the page, even if you then added another bit, and that counts as a revert. Confusing/annoying I know.:) P.S. One only needs to view your contribs to see you have a thing about the phrase 'British Isles' which predominantly leads to you making an edit that removes it from somewhere. Why not edit about something you've seen on telly or eaten or something instead, or hit Special:Random ? Sticky Parkin 23:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop being silly. You cannot remove the wrods "British Isles" from all of wikipedia and it is vandalism to try it William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing/Archives/2008 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Personal attack by an administrator, and not assuming good faith. Background: this administrator reverted another editors edit [ here] with the comment Thanks. What you're missing is Bardcom's one-man campaign to remove the words "British Isles" from wikipedia., and pointed to the ongoing RfA. I placed a warning on the editors Talk page, as I would for any editor that makes a personal comment to claim I am on a one-man campaign, etc, and any insinuation that my edits are driven by any motive other than to make this encyclopedia better. TThe reason given for this block is "vandalism". No warning were given, no discussion took place. This block is also an abuse of admin rights and policies.
Decline reason:
I believe this is an appropriate use of the blocking facility. If the removal of British Isles is subject of a RfA, then it should not be performed without the backing of the community - it's simple courtesty. If an administrator has also called for you to curtail those actions, it should be respected. It's a 3 hour block - not the end of the world. Take it as it's meant - to reduce distruption to Wikipedia. — -- Jza84 Talk 19:20, 12 July 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(outdent) Anyone? -- Bardcom ( talk) 18:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I honestly say this in good faith, Bardcom - you've got to ease up on these Warnings you send out - especially the "you will be blocked" bit in bold. You've got the whole "ad hominen" thing out of perspective - the admin may have seen it as provocative behaviour. I suspect though you are just mistaken about how far you can take "ad hominen". When you edit as you do, you have to roll with a few punches - and your idea of "ad hominem" is just unworkably sensitised IMO. If we all acted on the things you have done, we would see nothing around but warnings from each other, adn not just around here but across Wikipedia too.
I certainly agree that admins should give their own warnings and not step in cold - but when I was blocked the admin ironically read some of -and referred to- your unecessary 'Warnings' on my Talk page, so I'm not sure what to say to you there!! I could put it this way -I got an out-of-the-blue '48 hours' for no concrete reason at all - at least you've just got 3 hours, whatever it was about! I didn't even know they could go that low! Sheesh.- Matt Lewis ( talk) 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Comment to Jza84. Unfortunately, none of you explanation makes sense. First of all, the RfA is very explicitly *not* about the removal of the term "British Isles". Secondly, are you in effect asking for me to check my editting with "the community" *before* making the edits? Thirdly, no administrator called for me to curtail these actions. Finally, it may only be a 3 hour block, but it's still wrong, and an abuse of admin powers. This action is so unjustified, and being backed up by other admins, I've lost whatever small shred of faith I have. I've done *nothing* wrong. -- Bardcom ( talk) 20:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing/Archives/2008 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Reasons given for upholding the block are not true. It's important to maintain integrity on Wikipedia, and to show that admins do not abuse their powers. For that to happen, blocks must not be seen to further a personal cause of an admin, or as a weapong wielded by an admin. I'm asking that this block is lifted because I did not vandalise anywhere on Wikipedia - being the reason given. The length of time of this block is irrelevant, the point is that it is an abuse of Admin powers.
Decline reason:
First, this was a good block to prevent further disruption, second, the block has already expired, and third, the appropriate place to bring this is to the attention of the blocking admin, then WP:ANI if there are still questions - which I see has already been done. Dreadstar † 21:09, 12 July 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
-- Bardcom ( talk) 20:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)It's now clear to me that if admins can bully and block like this, it's a project I don't want to have any part of. If admins can review another's behaviour can give incorrect reasons as to why it should be upheld, it seems that the duty of care for behaviour is far lower than the duty of care for content. That's always been the problem here.... I've no stomach for this any longer. A big "Thank you" to the good people I've met - keep up the good work. -- Bardcom ( talk) 20:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm worried that you're being goaded into an edit war over the British Isles stuff. I'm a complete stranger, but it would be a shame to see you get in trouble over this. Go for a walk, maybe grab a pint somewhere? Actually, I might do that myself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pldms ( talk • contribs) 13:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you did not get the point with your last two blocks, but you need to stop removing "British Isles" and reverting people when they disagree. I see that you have done 4 [16] [17] [18] [19] reverts on that subject just today, and countless others in the last week.
If people revert you then it is your job to reach a consensus on a talk page, you can't just go over a list of articles you have changed and revert them every day. You do seem to be on a campaign, you do little else here other than remove "British Isles" from articles, and while your reasons vary your actions are rock solid.
You are more than welcome to argue your point on the talk page as long as you respect the consensus that develops. If you cannot convince the community of the value of your changes then they will not be accepted. If you can then they will be.
I am going to start considering multiple reverts by you on the same subject(British Isles) to be a form of edit warring even if they are spread across several pages. You need to stop edit warring your point across. Stubbornness is no way to win an academic debate. 1 != 2 13:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It is Bold, Revert, Discuss. It is not Bold, revert, revert back. Big difference. And also ThankunColl makes a very good point. 1 != 2 14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No gag, talk all you want. Don't make your point be reverting. If someone refuses to talk to you and continues to revert then follow the dispute resolution process, but don't just keep reverting. 1 != 2 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
And please stop templating William, he knows the rules better than you do and he is not breaking them one bit. Sending him warnings accomplished nothing. 1 != 2 13:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. I don't think William was making an unreasonable statement, your edit history supports it. 1 != 2 13:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, disagree as you may that was a quote from the policy, "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
The comment is about your actions, not you as a person. If you make actions that are disruptive then people can and will call you on it. It is a fact that your justifications to your actions sound contrived to fit the single goal of removing "British Isles" from articles. If we see something with feathers floating on the water making a quacking sound we call it a duck. 1 != 2 14:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I find it unlikely you will find an admin to enforce your interpretation of policy. 1 != 2 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any administrators taking your point of view there. I see ATren giving some advice about wording the same sentiments less abrasively, but that is not really an enforcement issue. While it could be more diplomatic it is not blatantly uncivil to the point of being a policy issue. 1 != 2 15:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
We cannot remove old blocks, and even if we could handfuls of admins reviewed that block and endorsed it. Your next block was endorsed by multiple admins also. If WMC did not block you for that behavior another admin would have anyways. The only repercussion you have received for giving that template was a polite request not to template people who have not really done anything wrong. 1 != 2 15:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Bardie- If you leave a polite, "hand written" request or message, which could be worded slightly similarly to the template, it won't annoy people so much or seem like you're templating them deliberately to disparage/patronise/annoy. Sticky Parkin 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Re [20]. Please stop wasting my time. I realise that you're patiently establishing a trail for some imaginary future RFC, but you've made your point now and can give up. If you'd also give up the anti-BI campaign, I'd be grateful William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I am away until Monday Night; I have been investigating Irish Weather recoreds on the internet; FYI William Molyneux did start recording Irish weather from 1684; unfortunately the records have now been lost. Lucian Sunday ( talk) 06:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The term "Great Britain" is a calque from French, where is was used to differentiate Britain from "Little Britain" (Britanny). It hardly ever occured in English until it was adopted by the Stuarts in 1603/1604 as part of their new title - "King of Great Britain". From 1707 it actually became the name of the state, and still forms part of the UK's official name today. Its use in English, therefore, is in origin purely political. There is a trend in Wikipedia to call the island by that name, but this is mistaken. The island is, and always has been, called simply "Britain" in normal English usage. That "Britain" is also often used as a synonym for the UK in no way compromises its original and normal meaning. I would suggest restricting "Great Britain" to political matters concerned with the British state as it was constituted from 1707 to 1801, and thereafter using "United Kingdom". For the period 1603 to 1707 it may also have some limited usage, in reference to the Stuart dynasty and related matters. It should not be used for any period before 1603, where simply "Britain" will suffice. Also, "Britain" should be used for the island and its people, divorced from matters to do with the state, up to the present day. TharkunColl ( talk) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Response to your suggestion on my Talk page. CarterBar ( talk) 10:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Bard, you are apparently not aware of the fact that some time back, arising from rows about the inclusion of the offensive term "BI" in 100% Irish articles a "treaty" was agreed which was that in general BI should not be added to Irish articles if it wasn't already there and/or if it wasn't absolutely necessary. Thus your argument (in an edit comment) that the issue is confined to *this* (Shannon) article is wrong. I'd ask you not to add the term to the Shannon article again. Thanks. Sarah777 ( talk) 22:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hebrides. Trouble is it's a crap reference. It's a Scottish Tourist Board site - What will they know about geology? Stroll on! No reference is better than a bad reference. I'm putting it back to what it was when I first came across this article, like last year. Mister Flash ( talk) 13:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
For keeping an eye out for disruptive edits, and dealing with such edits through the appropriate channels. You are brilliant! Johnpigg ( talk) 10:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC) |
-- HighKing ( talk) 08:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't you ever give up!! We've had this already with you, swapping out British Isles at GENUKI just because you don't like it. As I said last time, British Isles is the preferred term for people who know about these things, namely GENUKI and genealogy. Look here - quote from the website "The UK and Ireland are regarded, for the purposes of this Genealogical Information Service, as being made up of England, Ireland (i.e. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland), Wales, and Scotland, together with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Together, these constitute the British Isles - which is a geographical term for a group of islands lying off the north-west coast of mainland Europe. ". Now butt out, leave GENUKI alone and go and find something else to do. 82.14.71.91 ( talk) 13:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Since all Irish people were British in the 19th century, then almost all settlers on New Zealand were British (whether English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh). ðarkun coll 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this, but I noticed that you have not been notified about a thread on the Administrators' noticeboard as is customary. Please see this thread and comment as you wish. Thanks, Keeper ǀ 76 16:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing/Archives/2008 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I had already stopped editing an hour beforehand, and had posted this on the other editors Talk page calling for a cooling off. Further, one of the edits counted is a self-revert because I thought I had accidently 3RRed - this should not be counted. More on my Talk page
Decline reason:
While you did undo your last revert you then changed your mind and redid it [21]. The fact that you took a break gave no indication that you were going to stop edit warring as evidenced by your history of edit warring on this subject. You have edit warred over this before more than a few times and you have even been blocked for edit warring over this. This is a valid block, I was going to do it myself but was beaten to it. The other party was blocked too. Blocks for edit warring will only get longer as they repeat. — Chillum 19:24, 29 July 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
-- HighKing ( talk) 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
User:EmpireForever is an SPA that only reverts my edits (easy to check). He deliberately set out to goad me into an edit-war - and for a short while, and like an idiot, I obliged. But I recognized this - it took only an hour - but I realized the tactic being employed. His behaviour is deliberately designed to offend and to goad - for example referring to Irish as terrorists
here. (When I pointed this out, no action was taken!!!) I admit I got a rush of blood - but blocks should not be punitive, and given the circumstances and the insults, I think my pulling back from editing and remaining civil should count for something. I had posted this to
User:EmpireForever
here an hour before the block was imposed with the intention of leaving two articles in the state he left them in, and two articles in the state I left them in - in the interests of trying to be fair. Blocking is not meant to be punitive - and since I had already recognized that I was being drawn into an edit-war with the sole purpose of trying to get me blocked, and I had stopped - I am requesting that the block is lifted (or seeing as it's nearly 24 hours already and nobody has reviewed it) reduced - I had recognised the undesirable behaviour and had stopped.
I recognise that many considered my edits to be disputive behaviour in the past, and have been trying to work towards a more permanent solution. For example, here where TharkunColl suggested a "British Isles" project, and here with Ddstretch who suggested a workgroup and asked for references to be produced for a number of edits.
Finally another SPA targetting my edits has recently been created - User:LemonMonday . This editor is not acting in good faith.
-- HighKing ( talk) 13:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC) -- HighKing ( talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing, more than once I have told you that edit warring, specifically over one issue, will lead to blocks. I told you your edits were disruptive, you insisted they were not. If you keep acting the same way, you will keep getting blocked. I have seen this over and over, somebody just will not accept that their behavior is inappropriate and eventually they just stay blocked and feel they have been hard done by. I don't want to see that again, I would far rather see you take heed of the communities reaction to your actions and change. Chillum 19:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You say I have never justified the first block, but I have repeatedly pointed out that several admins reviewed that block and found it to be just fine. You are a repeat offender, you keep doing the same offense over and over. The events leading up to this block are nearly identical to the events leading to the last block, ie you were edit warring to remove the term "British Isles" from an article. Nothing in those diffs makes me involved, nothing in those diffs was not also said by other admins reviewing your first block. Chillum 19:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing/Archives/2008 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
With respect to Chillum, I request that an uninvolved admin please review and take into account the circumstances surrounding the period in question.
Decline reason:
This is your third block for the same thing. You have been given ample warning that edit warning is not allowed, you do not have to be rewarned in every dispute. Gaming the system by edit warring without stepping over the 3RR bounds is against the spirit of WP:3RR and is still disruptive. BJ Talk 20:32, 29 July 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Excuse my HighKing, but I am involved only in that I have asked you not to be disruptive and asked you not to edit war. The blocking policy makes it clear that have prior administrative interaction with a user does not make me involved. If you seek another admins review fine, but I am well within my remit to review this request. I think you will find that the other admin will see you violated 3RR in the precise same way as you did to get your prior block. To be frank I think it is more the answer I came to, not who I am that led you to reject my review. Chillum 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, Lemon was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, however when the blocking admin was not available to show evidence it was reversed. I have brought attention to those edits that indicate it is an account used to avoid a block [22]. Chillum 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you recognize that you violated 3RR? Do you recognize that violating 3RR leads to being blocked? Do you recognize that you do often make the same revert over many articles? What do you mean you had no chance to undo your edit? You did undo your edit, then you changed your mind and redid it. Regardless, I will leave your second unblock request to another admin. However I don't think you should be allowed a third. If you don't like the next review you need to just accept it regardless. Chillum 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The unblock request did not address your issues, because we don't deal with blocks based on the framing the user requests us to. We review unblocks in the framing of policy. If you look at WP:3RR you will see a list of exceptions, you will not see "someone baited me into doing it" in that list. The reason 3 different admins have come to the conclusion that this block was necessary should be an indication of that.
I fail to see which part of the review was inaccurate. This is the third block for the same thing, you did have ample warning. Regardless, I assure you I have not made up my mind about you, if your edits cease to be disruptive then I will have no issue with you. Please don't think this is in any way personal, I just have a strong respect for the idea of a neutral point of view and find accounts dedicated to a single goal to be contrary to that. Chillum 20:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, if you had read the page you would have seen that I have already said that the blocking policy says prior administrative interaction with a user does not make me involved. I have never been in any sort of content dispute with this user, my sole involvement has been to ask that the user not act in a disruptive fashion. I have read your interpretation of other events in the past and frankly I don't think you understand what administrators are.
If you can show me the policy and some diffs of my edits that shows me acting inappropriately then I will reconsider, not that it will change anything as yet another admin has endorsed this block. You seem to think that you can just say "This is a bad block" and simply disregard the fact that people the community have entrusted to interpret policy have found differently. You don't seem to care that a block stands up to scrutiny, you just insist on your own opinion. Well that is not how we work.
If you think my unblock review was in some way out of line then start and RFC, or post at WP:AN, or even drag me infront of arbcom. But I don't think it will get anywhere because I did not do anything wrong. Chillum 22:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I recently unblocked User:EmpireForever after he gave an undertaking not to edit war for the remaining duration of his block. If you would give a similar undertaking (i.e. to perform no reversions of plausibly good-faith content changes for the remaining duration of your block - subject to the normal exceptions of reverting obvious vandalism, copyright violations etc.) then I would be happy to unblock you. If you wish to give such an undertaking you should re-request unblocking, citing this note for the reviewing admin as I may not be online to unblock you personally. CIreland ( talk) 22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Blocking admin is willing to conditionally unblock with an undertaking from me to not edit war - I give this undertaking. See note on my Talk page.}}
--
HighKing (
talk)
22:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I unblocked first and was going to post the unblock notice second, but Jpgordon does it the other-way round. DDStretch (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
HighKing/Archives/2008 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been unblocked (see Talk page), but it seems that the IP address was also blocked and has not been unblocked. Can someone unblock the IP address. BTW, this is not a private IP address, so it might also affect other editors.
Decline reason:
You have to tell us the message on the edit screen when you try to edit; without that, we don't know which IP to unblock. — Golbez ( talk) 09:06, 30 July 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.