User talk:TopGun/Punitive Block

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

December 2011

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Block expired before request answered.

Permanent link: [1]. Permanent link of

WP:ANI: [3]
.


You have been
BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TopGun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was the one who unilaterally stopped the editwar without going or intending to break 3RR or other wise wikilawyer around it. The consensus on the discussion was in my favour even after that, with my efforts to not escalate the edit war and instead report at the notice board, the block action against me seems to be unreasonable and at its best for something I haven't done (even if assumed to be my mistake, the block seems to be punitive because I already explained in my report that I did not intend to take any action by my self). lTopGunl (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit-warring - and the mere fact that you were not the last one to participate doesn't change that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection." << is exactly what I did and got blocked for it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I see no point where you posted at
BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I indicated protection option in my report on AN3. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have read
BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Which is exactly why I call this punitive, for being too late for something I might have done unintentionally and for filing a report at AN3 to stop what was going on. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And even more so, after ~24 hrs block, I don't see how I'm being prevented from harming the project to which I was constructively contributing (see my contributions). But since I can't revert vandalism because I'm blocked, you might wan't to revert this for me [4] in the mean while. Evidently I've yet only been prevented from reverting obvious vandalism. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Been reverted now by another user. I deserve a barnstar for pointing out vandalism while being in the block, eh? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TopGun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do want another last review of the facts that I stated above and even if that is still considered right, this report [5] which I made at

WP:NPOVN#Taliban to see who was being disruptive here. So I just followed revert, warn and report. There was no chance of further discussing this as a consensus had already been reached on the NPOV notice board. The block was an indiscriminating one to an editor who reverted per admin closed consensus and to one who was violating it. This is highly discouraging and only sends the message that if you report a disruptive editor you will get an equal punitive ban for reverting him (or go through the fallacy that he did not violate 3RR - which I previously have faced one AN3 - since I didn't revert him that many times)? lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Decline reason:

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.

You don't have anything "punitive" ... you personally violated 3RR. You apparently already understand DR, and know better than to personally edit-war, even if you think you're right. Your own unblock request shows you don't yet understand
BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I do understand all the policies, I don't think I violated 3RR, because there was some editing before my report between me and that user that wasn't reverted by each other rather we were both adding content (incase that you still count it - it was not based on those intentions on reverting), as soon as he added contentious content after one or two reverts and a warning in edit summary I let go. And the punitive part here is that it was understood that I wasn't going to revert again since I cleared that in my report (which was before I had a hint of me getting blocked on this). You still haven't told me what the block is preventing me from (other than participating in the talk page discussion)? So I don't understand how is this block preventive? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
"Most of that is a rather long winded way of saying that you think that you were right to edit war. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right"."
← Great, I'm sure that wikilawyering applies both ways.
Per the blocking policy:
"Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now—particularly if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved."
← There's no explanation given how I would have done anything disruptive had I not been blocked. And also it appears to violate
WP:ANI for wider community attention. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
You do indeed seem to have said that you would not do any more reverting, and the block reason was stated to be for edit warring, so you do have a case for the block not being preventive. However, it seems to me that was not the only issue: your handling of this matter was unsatisfactory in several respects, such as: your stopping edit warring after 3 reverts, and subsequent comments suggesting you thought this meant that you were exempt from an edit war block (despite having been told, in connection with an earlier case where you were edit warring, that "you don't have to break the three revert rule in order to be edit warring"); and your posting an edit war report on an editor who had not been warned, making the highly dubious claim to think that an edit summary constituted giving an warning to the user. I could go into greater length about the problems, but that should be enough to make it clear why I think "I said that I wouldn't carry on edit warring" does not fully cover the case.
talk) 13:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Please do list the issues, I would welcome them. Although saying that my handling of the issue was not satisfactory is another point for the block being punitive. Infact every reason I've got from the three administrators, actually two since the 2nd one gave a 2 liner, is more of point for the block being punitive (without being judgmental here) and it is obvious that no explanation has yet been given for how it is preventive. Judging by the length and kind of the other user's comments on
WP:NPOVN
and the contentious edits he made on the article even after the consensus was made, a warning template would definitely have resulted in personal attacks, so I though better to warn in the edit summary, which I'm sure was seen by the user who was checking each and every edit I made.
The rest of your comment points back to the case that you have accepted. The fact that I stopped even on the third revert (both in regard to or regardless of the editwar) did mean that I was not going to revert after that as pointed out in the AN3 report I filed (About the connection with the earlier warning, I assumed this one a separate case otherwise I would have been careful even about going above two reverts without warning the other user on talk page, but this was the obvious consensus violation. Even so, I did say that I was not going to revert again).
Otherwise, it's just a case of wikilawyering on the administrator's side for still blocking me while there was (or is) no reason even explained by him for why I would be a damaging user. Blocking is serious for me. And the as the blocking policy itself points out, it is a serious matter. So a punitive block even with the edit war, that too with no
cooled me down'. This actually has a disruptive affect on me (and as I pointed out above with proof, that it has yet only prevented me from reverting obvious vandalism). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TopGun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Completely Punitive block since I stopped the editwar unilaterally (with the other editor making top on edits). Refer to the comment and discussion above. I pointed out that I wasn't going to make any edits before I was given a surprise block myself for reporting a contentious editor. There is no

WP:COOLDOWN. The reasons given for declining above two unblock requests cover only the first part of my appeal, is it being ignored repeatedly? Because I see no response when ever I raise the point of the block being punitive. The blocking editor has explained in his comment that I was too late when I reported. That makes it even more in the punitive category. I've still not been given any explanation even after unblock requests on how this block is preventive. lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Accept reason:

accept reason here (

BWilkins ←track) 15:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IF I've told you once, I've told you a hundred times...
Please see [7]. The consensus was exactly what I pointed out in the start of the discussion. I unilaterally stopped editing on further edits by the user, and reported. What's my fault if I reported and clearly explained my intentions of not editwarring in the report at
WP:AN3?? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Permanent link: [8]

TopGun -

I've blocked you 72 hours for edit warring. I see no other way to go about this. Even if the other editors were treating you with bad faith, the revert warring on your part is still enough to constitute disruption. While I do think that Darkness Shines has taken the wrong attitude towards mediation with you, that does not condone the edit warring.

I hope this will help you decide in the future that edit warring is not OK, and that, no matter how unfair it is, it is better to engage in discussion or mediation, and let the other side sit with egg on its face, not you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See how JCAla comes in to 'help' [9]. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the 'reason' you gave for my block.... lol.... "Edit warring: Pak Watan". I've made two reverts ever on that article (with the rest being sourcing and unobjectionable old edits)... both of them were to DS for his hounding and per se out of process edits. You seem to be unilaterally implementing 1RR on me given this block and the last block both being for a total of two reverts (in both of which you agreed my reverts were right). You really need some sleep. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Unblock on hold | 2=Magog the Ogre | 3=I reverted him twice for removing an article from the see also list which was not even deleted yet (and he was claiming there's no such thing as that while that list is for existing articles). I even let him be in the end (didn't revert him while I was still contributing to other articles)... backing out of a two revert editwar gets me a block? Really? He has purposely hounded me to every article I've ever edited. I've provided 15-20 diffs on Magog's talk page and can provide more than that. This was intentional on part of Darkness Shines, and given that I decided not to revert, I should not have been blocked since it doesn't prevent me from doing some thing I backed out from. Magog you need to check the time of his revert and my contributions list. I actually have engaged in mediation with DS... but let me show you what personal attacks he made there (after adding a 'disagree' to the mediator's terms). [10] [11]. Also note the comments out side the template. --

talk) 11:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)}}[reply
]

Just on a note, this block seems to be a result of Magog repeatedly being adminshoped and
WP:NOTTHEM to me. This block is a piece of crap, to keep those comments of "taking my side" and being a rouge admin from you. You are at equal fault for not checking his stalking and hounding before. This is simple, revert warn and report. I've done enough of the reports... warnings get me abuses in return (which go unchecked after reports too), and reverts were legitimate.. and hell I backed out of those too. In short, this is a disruptive block whether another admin agrees or not. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Just a note: You are likely to get an emphatic response if you remain calm, and simply explain your position. I would also suggest that you assure Magog in good faith that you will not breach 1RR for the remainder of your block. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good faith suggestion. I've been calm over last two months of hounding of which Magog is aware. This block is disruptive and I feel no regret calling it that. DS who routinely makes personal attacks and never gets a block or even a warning for it, I don't think not being calm will mess with my position here. Per Magog's actions, lashing back is good as far as you don't editwar (or break 1RR in my case). I will definitely not stick to 1RR which is not mandatory either. As for the editwar, I was drawn into it easily before, but I've not edit warred as such anymore save a few times after being hounded, but both my last blocks were for breaking Magog's arbitrary 1RR limit. Sorry. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that DarknessShines has been hounding you, then an RfC on user conduct will be appropriate. Suggest you file it once the block expires. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely had that in mind, but I was giving
WP:ROPE to DS per Magog's advice. It will be coming soon anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

{{

adminhelp
}}

Another [13]. DS also admits "checking" and following my edits. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which statements do you find to be personal attacks? I can tell that DS is upset, but I don't see anything that I can distinguish as a personal attack with any certainty. --Chris (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using the word "bitching" in both instances for me, surely uncivil. Being upset is not license for more incivility (given that it was one of the reasons that mounted up to his current block and a previous red line drawn for him on ANI as a final warning for minor personal attacks). And then the F word in the both diffs and first edit summary. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DS is certainly not being civil. However, not to a degree where I think revocation of talk page access is necessary. Also, DS has an outstanding unblock request and revoking talk page access would disrupt that process. I wouldn't worry too much about DS' remarks -- I'm sure any reviewing administrator will be taking them into account. --Chris (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That will be it then I guess. May be make a note of that there? The message being sent currently is something like, "good now you can do all those things which you couldn't when you were not blocked". Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they want to be uncivil,
let them be uncivil. --Chris (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I have asked Magog to unblock you. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Request above... the reviewing admin forgot?!?! --lTopGunl (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)}} {{

adminhelp}}[reply
]

Don't think he'll accept his fault here. Can an admin either inform the reviewing admin or get over with this (on hold since two days). If anyone does unblock me, please note in the summary that this was a bad block on two reverts on the article mentioned as the block reason, see article history, (like the previous one, which was also on two reverts) either because of the
WP:SOUP (specifically like the one JCAla just started in response to this request first on this page and then on Magog's talk mentioning false reasons which were never given as block reasons) or Magog trying to avoid comments on his neutrality as I've explained above or both. Expires in 16 hours or so anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Looks like the block has already expired, so I've deactivated the unblock request templates. --Chris (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block not justified

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Permanent links: [14] [15]

In a recent post to my talk page you ask if the block would have been lifted if it had not been left until it expired. I think the reason given for the block was not good, but it looks to me as though, taking the relevant editing history into account as a whole, there may have been good reasons for a block. In fact, on

talk) 08:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

About my last comment on Magog's talk, that was sarcastic (as apparent), based on the same reasons I gave for the unblock. I wasn't convinced of my block either (in the last one I was not sure, though even Magog agreed that I reverted in the spirit of BRD and I guess he does here too), but seeing this block I have had doubts about both my blocks. Anyway, all my reasons were given in the unblock request. Just thought it would be fair if such was noted after a left open review. Thank you for clearing this up James. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Although, as I have indicated, I think there may possibly be a justification somewhere, I think the bottom line is that the blocking admin did not give a good reason for the block, and the onus really is on him/her to provide one. A block can't be justified on the basis that "there may possibly be a justification somewhere".
talk) 09:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1RR block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Permanent link [16]
You have been
BWilkins ←track) 13:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TopGun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not been under any 1RR restriction for which I'm being blocked. The blocking administrator told me not to game Darkness Shines into an edit war (who was under a 1RR restriction agreed on his unblock). I clarified to Bwilkins (the blocking admin) that I didn't intend to game DS in to an edit war and gave adequate reasons for it (other users were in disagreement with him where he edited in that case). I also told Bwilkins that he did not have the authority to impose a 1RR as an administrator which is imposed either by community or by Arbcom. This is a bad block (My previous two blocks were for making a second edit was well - the second one was even clarified by the reviewing administrator to be unjustified but he didn't remember to lift it before it was expired). Bwilkins has rejected two previous ANI reports from me about rude IPs or editors as well with putting all the blame on me where I had been civil. This is a completely prejudiced block for what so ever reasons Bwilkins has. Also note that this report was made by DS on AN3 soon after he got reported for his own violations which even Bwilkins acknowledged. He has again violated his 1RR at Pak Watan where I reverted only once. Even on the article I am blocked for, Inter-Services Intelligence‎, both my reverts were not against DS (one revert to an IP who copy pasted content and another to a different user). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It was reasonable to assume that the 1RR restriction only applies to your interaction with

Xavexgoem (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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.

  • I'll also ask for action to be taken against Bwilkins for over stepping his authority - if it can not be done now, I'll ask for that on ANI. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For reference, here is the thread in which BWilkins warned you about this behavior, and here is the report which led to the block. It's clear from the conversations linked that you were aware of the warning. If you were convinced that the warning was bogus, why didn't you escalate the issue? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting the links to AN3 Luna, I did escalate it (on that notice board where that warning was given), please see my comments there. As no other admin commented on that, and I could not find any such policy of an admin having the authority of unilaterally implementing such sanctions. All my comments on both reports (including a talk page discussion on Bwilkins's talk between him and DS, where DS pointed out my refusal to recognize the unexplained and undocumented sanction), do tell that I escalated. I just didn't go to ANI, because Bwilkins has a habit of throwing my genuine reports in trash in cases when rude IPs or editors were clearly being uncivil (not even leaving them warnings). This block clearly violates "explain block" part of the policy. See over my last three blocks.. first of which was made by him too, and he failed to explain it properly though other administrators did at ANI after I took it there. My last two blocks were both for a
WP:1RR my self (and quoted it to Bwilkins), it does not say any such thing. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Unrelated
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You were made aware of it several times, by different people. JCAla (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I was made aware of the 'sanction' not that it was right. I explicitly said it was undocumented and not in policy. Your comment shows that you are not aware of the situation.. let admins handle it. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this getting reviewed or left to expire like every other one? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I would take a quick read of
BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
There are no attacks on any one in my request. It's funny you consider "war-mongering" nature being labelled on some one as not an attack and the statement of you having a prejudice as one. Other editors did disagree with DS in the cases of my reports (I didn't say he got reverted by other editors). You need to see that talk page for that. In one case he was reverted by another right after me, though he didn't make a revert after that because that would be his third. I don't care about
WP:NOTTHEM when you haven't even explained my block. You've made this block without explaining the sanction you put on me of which you don't have any authority. As for the escalation, this was explained by the reviewing admin here as he forgot to complete the review before it expired [17]. In anycase you've failed to provide any explanation or documentation for the sanction you issued. This block is disruptive preventing me from contribution. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You are the only one who believes your block has not been explained to you. Links have been provided by others to the exact places where you understood (whether you disagree or not). Because of YOUR behaviour, you're blocked. When you decide that you're willing to behave in a productive, collaborative manner, you'll be a happier person and a more productive editor. Right now, all the community sees is baiting, taunting, game-playing,
BWilkins ←track) 10:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You should really check out what the community is seeing about baiting first [18] [19] [20] [21]. I did not bait him in to violating his 1RR, he deliberately made second reverts at two places. And then later at a third place and then reported me for making two reverts in an incident not involving him. That by no way is gaming with his sanction. And you've not still explained how there's a 1RR on me. You can not impose one. I asked you before when you told me about the sanction... you didn't explain it then, and YOU have failed to explain it now. There's no policy (or not any shown to me as yet) which says an administrator can impose 1RR. You're the one who overstepped authority and now wikilawyering over it. If you can not show it, don't care to comment again. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the adminhelp - as per the
BWilkins ←track) 17:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I searched
WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Is that rocket science? Or even remotely wikilawyering to ask for the policy.. don't think so. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I did, of course, assume you would follow a couple of links as needed as you were already using the adminhelp template. My apologies for assuming such. From {{
BWilkins ←track) 18:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, I searched the page you linked instead of the template doc. Although as a matter of fact, as opposed to the quoted recommendation, that list seems to be shorter than the unblock list. Anyway, not a big deal... I can do with the 'unblock' template hoping an administrator will eventually check this out. By the way, I did give you the proof about the escalation as well, whatever happened to that... In case my in block expires or the escalation is brought back to normal, I'll still want this block reviewed. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You will have noted that I contacted that admin to verify the claims. As of this point, I have not heard back. (
BWilkins ←track) 18:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Just checked that. You say both my current are last block are to do with 1RR imposition (note that there was no said imposition in the last case although the block was on a second revert), you might want to correct that - DS agreed to 1RR on lifting the mutual block he got with that last one of mine which he actually got for hounding me admittedly as noted. There are also diffs on top of the archive I provided for verification of that review. Anyway, I'll wait for both that and the review. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While waiting, can you confirm that you do understand what 1RR means? In your unblock, and on AN/3RR you refer to DS himself breaking 1RR on Pak Watan ... yet the two edits you provided diff's to on AN/3RR were three days apart. Can you just explain what 1RR means, according to your understanding? (
BWilkins ←track) 19:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I understand what 1RR means. Same rules from 3RR apply in this case. Here are the two reverts that I meant to report for
Dal Khor for example as noted in the report I made for him - an uninvolved editor from Afd said on the talk page that it was enough and the article was cited for the little content it had, he still chose to tag and then revert me again on it without any consensus. He also editwarred over a rightly placed POV tag, just so that I'm not accused of WP:MPOV here, it was brought to Magog's attention (who has been an uninvolved admin handling the related issues recently) who said it was a 100% correctly placed tag and there was no need to editwar on it. So while simply adding tags might not be considered editwar by most editors (including me), in this case it was. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
TopGun, this situation has become even more concerning, however, I am going to
BWilkins ←track) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
There's no misquote. 1) I gave the diff of original quote of the reviewing admin with full context, 2) Read the edit summary [24]. Those are the exact words I quoted, could have done so in inverted commas too in those very words as I gave the diffs along with it. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you've read the exchange with him. "Block not justified" means that, as per the rest of his statement you link to AND the clarification on his userpage, "the blocking admin did not properly justify it", NOT that the block was not deserved. Read carefully, and fix it now that the dual meanings of the words have been clarified for you (
BWilkins ←track) 15:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I did not give any dual meanings. I pointed to full discussion. He said the same there too... perhaps you didn't read it. And he's right... the block remains unjustified ever since. Wikipedia blocks are not imposed without a justification and an explanation. So that block was pretty much invalid and James said it would have been lifted if it had not expired - that pretty much says it was not deserved. It's something like some one blocking you for something you did according to him, but never telling you what it was, and it was clearly not valid on those reverts. I've explained that block well in that request and I've provided full context with links here. Just for record he also pointed out that this sanction you imposed was clearly not an administrator's role (and the block is based on it). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: the word "justified" has two meanings:
  • "deserved"
  • "explained"
The page in question clearly states that his meaning (and the meaning in the edit summary) was "explained", but that the block was indeed deserved. (
BWilkins ←track) 15:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
He did not say it was deserved either. He said, it could have been deserved but he was not told of it.. and I say I was not told of that, its called a witch hunt in simple language. You can read that block discussion from the archive, its messy as I'm simply reiterating it. There seems to be a similar problem with this block (an advanced one though), you not agreeing with it yourself is a different thing and you've made it abundantly clear that you don't. I stand by all my statements. Ask me if there's any thing unclear. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a witch hunt. This block is currently protecting this project from you, and your continuous
WP:BATTLE
mentality. You still don't get it. You are the cause - and could be the solution - to everything you find problematic on Wikipedia.
So, here's the final word: show me you understand your block. Acknowledge and accept the 1RR block you're under when it comes to articles that you and DS are both editing (if he follows you to a new one, let me know ... those DON'T count). Understand, accept, and promise not to do this again, I will unblock you now. (
BWilkins ←track) 00:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I can understand a block, I can even understand what all gaming means in regards to DS's sanction, but I can not understand this sanction for which the block was made by you as an admin. And then reverts against two other editors wasn't even relevant to DS (and oh, that report was exactly a
WP:BATTLE report just after DS got reported). Just for record, most of the articles that I and DS edit, DS got there through my contributions list (I already have provided diffs at occasions). The only first article was Taliban where he came through NPOVN thread me and another user started. I can understand your block if you show me that you can impose a sanction like this. If a user hounds my edits and gets a sanction, it does not automatically extend to me. I can list diffs of his hounding here, but I have no confidence, based on my previous experience with you, that you will take them seriously. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Ugh. Your 1RR restriction is NOT against edits by DS. It's on all articles that both you and DS edit. So, reverting other editors more than once, even if none of them were DS, is still breaking 1RR on that article. This was an intermediate step before what's likely to be a full-blown interaction ban between the two of you. This too has been explained to you more than once. (
BWilkins ←track) 13:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Both the interaction ban and the revert restriction are made by community. You seem to have taken it on your self. I don't agree to those restrictions put on by you, actually any restrictions imposed by you. If you could show me an admin could impose one, I could understand. You didn't, and then another admin agreed with my point. If you wanted a ban, you should have gotten a consensus... and then I would have provided enough diffs which clear me out of the blames you put on me. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, because you personally didn't believe the legitimacy of the 1RR, you felt you could go ahead and break it? Very wise, apparently. So, rather than acknowledge, and promise it won't happen again (so you can be unblocked) you choose to continue this line. Again, so wise (
BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
It's exactly the opposite of this. You personally imposed the sanction. And you don't show me any policy that makes it legitimate, and the current policies at
WP:1RR say something else. So no, I'm not going to take your word for it just like you would ask me for diffs in a report. Why don't we take this to ANI (which is going to happen sooner or later)? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Not that it changes much, as I'm sure it'll pop up there again, but this issue was already brought up at
ANI... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Appreciate pointing this out, and thanks to SMS for raising the issue. But as my next request below says, the issues that got me blocked are not dealt with in the decline or that ANI discussion. No explanation of 1RR. You are right, this will go to ANI still. It can be earlier if you let me take it there now, it will only be clearer about the status of the sanction after a discussion there. I'm not backing out of this till this is dealt with. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe
WP:AN, so that the community could overrule him. Of course, this was risky, as the community could have upheld the restriction or even imposed a "full-fledged" 1-rr on you... You chose to test your restriction, instead, – at least, that's how it looks like to an external observer – forcing Bwilkins to block you... Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and he has been exactly that to my reports at noticeboards. This happened twice, first declined reports at AN3 (which were on marginal editwar - and serious other issues) instead of taking an action on the over all, and told me to go to ANI, where he fully opposed not recognizing any of the personal attacks. He will still disagree with me that those were attacks, but most editors would consider terms, like "war-mongering nature", "most infamous editor in the wiki" etc as personal attacks. And I've provided diffs for DS's hounding... it might have been reasonable as you explained before for me not to engage him into an editwar... but me having a sanction on the articles against any editor is not covered by common sense here. That is a 1RR, not an administrative decision and needs explanation. As for the second part, an admin asked me right below my first unblock request why didn't I escalate... I've replied it there. I didn't stay away from ANI because of a presumed 'risk'. I stayed away because I've had the experience with ANI I mentioned above. And then, I didn't stay quite about it... that would be 'testing' the restriction. I openly denied right where it was supposedly imposed and every time it was brought up after that. Bwilkins can atleast confirm that whether or not he disagrees with me on the matter. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TopGun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Some inconsistency in last request denied. Reviewer says, "It was reasonable to assume that the 1RR restriction only applies to your interaction with

WP:EXPLAINBLOCK is one of them. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Decline reason:

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.

That happens a lot around here... doesn't it? --lTopGunl (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Towards a reasonable closure

If you believe that Darkness shines and/or JCAla are still presenting a problem in this area, I recommend filing an RFC. It's quite clear that complaining to administrators and noticeboards is not going to get the job done, for anyone involved. I would be happy to sign an RFC with you, if you have the patience, provided that I agree with everything you state on it, which is a big if.

If Darkness Shines and JCAla are watching this page (which they will be at some point, I'm sure), then I recommend the same thing, and in reverse.

If all of that fails, we can try ArbCom again. And perhaps I will be censured for making bad blocks of JCAla and TopGun and Darkness Shines, but more likely arbcom would be forced to come up with a solution no one likes. I seriously recommend some RFC'ing, and not just jumping into "the other party hates me and makes my time unworkable." In an RFC, with diffs and links, we can hopefully see what is really disruption on the other side's part (as you assert), and what is POV pushing on your part (as they assert). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will do that - DS needs that. But as far as the the sanction above is concerned, it is not understandable and is more of an issue with the imposing admin himself and I'll want this block reviewed in anycase. ANI would be the right venue for that... --lTopGunl (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's not understandable? You were being
BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
1) I specifically opposed it, acknowledged would be misplaced here... 2) I did not bait him, infact I showed you diffs that it was done from his side even per other editors. I don't think every one can make their own rules, even administrators. The whole point of consensus is against that. This is not any pride that is making me stand up to this block.. it's the disruptive and unfair nature of the block and not to mention the supposed sanction. Too much TLDR above on that anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make up my own rules.
Disruption
by anyone is unacceptable, and I quite clearly proved your disruption (actually, you proved it yourself). As such, you probably should therefore have been blocked at least 24hrs before you were.
Your
BWilkins ←track) 16:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
That's even double standards by your standards. This is only wikilaywering to prove the block as acceptable. I see my own actions... and my block was for not any action against policy but for your invented rule. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No double standards. I expect the same lack of disruption from everyone. I'm not here to justify the block - the reasons for it are apparent to everyone (or else you would be unblocked before now). Indeed, what i have been trying to do for almost a week is to try and get you unblocked, but that does not seem to be your goal. (
BWilkins ←track) 00:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
My point is the ill imposed sanction. I'll have it reviewed. I was not unblocked because most admins did not choose to wheel war your block when you were so insistent on it. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've been working butt off to try and get you unblocked, but I'm apparently so insistent on it? Odd that (
BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
That's presumptuous. I have my doubts about this whole matter and how it was handled, but I had (separate) reasons for maintaining the block. I do think it ought to be reviewed.
Xavexgoem (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TopGun/Punitive_Block&oldid=1143539290"