User:Slakr/Temp/guidoUnblockLog

From #wikipedia-en-unblock, where logging of unblock discussions is allowed. The head and tail of the log are trimmed off due to them being irrelevant, but they can be provided if desired. I've also censored out two spots where the user's ip address would have been revealed. Feel free to corroborate its integrity by posting your own. Cheers. -- slakr \ talk / 15:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[12:30:17]  user:Slakr reviewed and declined to unblock user talk:Guido den Broeder: Definitely a violation of 3rr. Moreover, you do appear to have a 3rr/edit warring block history, with the last one being may 29 for 1 week. Personally I'd probably have gone 2 weeks (simply because that'd be the next thing in the drop-down box); but 1 month might be justified, since you were explicitly cautioned about edit warring, yet [http://en.wikipedia. [12:30:18]  Handled: User talk:Guido den Broeder [12:30:21]  Autoreport: there is one user in (0 new). [12:30:27] sorry man, you totally 3rrd [12:30:51] and that last part of that sentence looks like a banged on my keyboard lol [12:31:27] !unblock [12:31:29]  1 - User talk:Simplyirresistiblepalmer Blocked by admin User:MaxSem at 2008-10-31; 17:14:17 for infinity: trolling/legal threats (ID 1196132) [12:31:29]  There is one user in (0 new). [12:31:34]  Did you not read the proposal? [12:32:06] "I already am on 1RR voluntarily, and have been for quite a while. " [12:32:18] that was what I was referring to when I mentioned 1rr [12:32:19]  Yes, that's correct [12:32:58]  So? [12:33:08] I did notice "To make it easier, I will not edit any page in the article namespace until December 1." [12:33:35]  And everbody was happy with that [12:33:47] which I forgot to comment on, but it's similar to the 1rr one, because it looks like you also had a history of being re-blocked for legal action [12:33:52]  So why are you spoiling the agreement? [12:34:16]  No, I was not reblocked [12:34:22]  And it's unrelated [12:34:43]  user:TravisTX reviewed and declined to unblock user talk:Simplyirresistiblepalmer: Umm, no. —Travistalk 17:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC) [12:34:43]  Handled: User talk:Simplyirresistiblepalmer [12:34:44]  Autoreport: there are currently no users in [12:35:39]  What we have as an isolate incident of a -possible- 3RR violation. That does not warrant a 1 month block [12:35:58] <GuidodB> Normal is 24 hours at the most. [12:36:19] oh it's very much a 3rr violation :P [12:36:22] * slakr does extensive 3rr work. [12:36:30] <GuidodB> So> [12:36:42] and if not, I double checked to make certain that it was also edit warring and/or disruptive editing [12:36:46] which it was both [12:36:50] as multiple editors reverted your edits [12:37:07] <GuidodB> The point being, re block duration? [12:37:28] yeah, for editors who repeatedly violated 3rr, we increase the duration accordingly [12:37:42] <GuidodB> That's not what the policy says [12:37:55] <Rjd0060> Yes it is [12:38:14] <GuidodB> The policy talks about successive violations [12:38:41] <GuidodB> This is not a successive violation, as Michael Connolley also explained [12:38:48] <GuidodB> and Carcharoth [12:38:59] <Rjd0060> "Users violating the rule may warrant a block from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance. Administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility when doing so." [12:39:34] <GuidodB> This is not a repeated violation [12:40:00] yes it is [12:40:02] * slakr points to your block log [12:40:12] I see several 3rr/edit warring entries there [12:40:33] <GuidodB> I've been around quite a while [12:40:44] <GuidodB> There have been plenty of edits in between [12:41:28] that's the point, exactly. You're expected to know 3rr [12:41:38] moreover, you were reminded [12:41:40] (just in case) [12:41:44] yet you ignored that [12:41:48] and continued on [12:42:28] so regardless of how long you've been around, if I were personally handling the WP:AN3 report, I can't say I wouldn't have done a 1 month either. [12:42:39] <GuidodB> I thought was following policy [12:43:01] but you also didn't double check when someone said you weren't [12:43:09] <GuidodB> Yes I did [12:43:19] so then where does it say that restoring tags is okay? [12:43:22] or deleting them [12:43:23] or whatever it was [12:43:24] :P [12:43:40] <UnBlockBot> 1 - User talk:Leo.stabile NEW Blocked by admin User:Moreschi at 2008-01-01; 23:30:44 for infinity: Troll (ID 736941) [12:43:40] <UnBlockBot> Autoreport: there is one user in (1 new). [12:43:44] <GuidodB> On the 3RR talk page [12:43:53] 3RR talk page != 3RR policy page [12:44:05] similarly, the CSD talk page != CSD policy page. [12:44:08] <GuidodB> The link is in my unblock request [12:44:13] else I'd be deleting a lot more stuff [12:44:16] :P [12:46:40] <GuidodB> Is it your opnion then, that users may remove dispute tags despite tha tags saying they shouldn't? [12:46:40] <GuidodB> Why do we have them, then? [12:47:43] *** Fritzpoll (n=Fritzpol@wikipedia/Fritzpoll) has joined #wikipedia-en-unblock [12:47:43] *** ChanServ sets modes #wikipedia-en-unblock +v Fritzpoll [12:48:00] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Original_research  <--- where does it say "don't remove me?" or similar [12:49:29] I mean, if I'm missing something, I'll unblock you right now. [12:49:54] but if anything, the tag documentation clearly states that you shouldn't apply the tag without explaining on the talk page [12:49:58] moreover [12:50:13] it's evident that people objected to your use of other tags [12:50:24] as you were reverted multiple times by multiple editors [12:50:44] which falls under disruptive editing as well. [12:51:42] <GuidodB> What you are misisng is that users remove dispute tags while there clearly is a disipute [12:51:58] <GuidodB> That is not allowed [12:52:33] again, where's the policy? [12:52:45] additionally, there are numerous articles which would violate it [12:52:52] including most of the controversial topics [12:52:54] <GuidodB> It's on the template tag, for pete's sake [12:53:13] Abortion comes to mind, where there would *always* be a tag on it, for example. [12:53:28] no, it's not on the template tag. [12:53:34] <GuidodB> Yes it is [12:53:34] show me the text [12:53:36] paste the text. [12:53:37] where. [12:53:47] show me the text that says "don't remove this tag." [12:53:51] or whatever. [12:53:55] <GuidodB> [12:54:01] no, of the ones you added. [12:54:14] <GuidodB> That's the one [12:54:33] <GuidodB> At lesat the main one [12:54:39] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=247275624 [12:54:41] <GuidodB> Note that it is stll there [12:55:04] that tag. [12:55:08] where is the text. [12:55:09] <GuidodB> I did not 'edit war' ove any other tag [12:55:46] <GuidodB> The OR tag I restored only once [12:56:13] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=247136334&oldid=247075900  <--- refimprove. [12:56:17] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=247151638 <--- refimprove re-added [12:56:28] <GuidodB> That's the Refimprove tag [12:56:53] <GuidodB> I stop restoring it a soon as people claimed there were sufficient sources [12:56:53] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=247180919  <--- and again [12:57:29] oh wow, [12:57:32] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=247257656 <--- and again! [12:57:46] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=247261036 <--- and again [12:57:50] and I should note [12:58:02] on that one, you restored it despite someone claiming sufficient sources. [12:58:51] *** werdan7 (n=w7@freenode/staff/wikimedia.werdan7) has joined #wikipedia-en-unblock [12:58:51] *** ChanServ sets modes #wikipedia-en-unblock +v werdan7 [12:58:58] <GuidodB> I don't hink so [12:59:07] then I'm sorry, but you'd be wrong. [12:59:09] we don't edit our diffs. [12:59:43] I don't know how else you can interpret the very obvious re-adding of that tag [12:59:45] then after that [12:59:47] the OR tag [13:00:05] <GuidodB> Well who said it then accoridng to you? [13:00:20] I did, because I run the cabal. :P :P :P [13:00:24] :D [13:00:35] * Rjd0060 salutes slakr [13:01:12] but in all seriousness, I really don't care what the article contains. It could be a story about a woodland nymph named Dynetria for all I care. I know 3RR and edit warring when I see it. [13:01:14] <GuidodB> The article used to have 300 sources, so Jfdwolff stating it has 105 does not immediately sound sufficient [13:01:44] <GuidodB> Well, I didn't. I believed I was following policy [13:02:02] like I said, I don't care; unless the tag removal is blatant vandalism, it's edit warring to restore it repeatedly. [13:02:22] <GuidodB> Perhaps, but I didn't know [13:02:47] had you been a noob, I would have assumed that [13:02:52] <GuidodB> I thought it was blatant vandalism [13:02:58] but as you so astutely pointed out, you've been around for a while. [13:03:23] <GuidodB> This is the first time I encountered people repeatedly removing dispute tags [13:03:51] and you were warned accordingly [13:04:00] I'm not sure what else to say. [13:04:07] <GuidodB> I'm still waiting for you to say that what they did is or isn't alright [13:04:20] well you'll be waiting for a while, because I don't care [13:04:27] I don't get involved in content disputes [13:04:33] <GuidodB> I was warned by the user removing them, that hardly counts [13:05:01] it counts enough for me :P [13:05:09] <UnBlockBot> 1 - User talk:Mascotmayank NEW Blocked by admin User:Orangemike at 2008-10-30; 00:25:05 for infinity: (ID 1193837) [13:05:10] <UnBlockBot> Autoreport: there are 2 users in (1 new). [13:05:20] and besides, you've been editwar blocked before [13:05:23] with ample warning [13:06:10] <GuidodB> I responded why I thought I was doing the right thing [13:06:10] <GuidodB> And didn't get a reply back [13:06:10] <GuidodB> So? [13:06:10] <GuidodB> Completely different cases, and ages ago [13:06:10] *** nixeagle (i=chatzill@Wikimedia/Nixeagle) has joined #wikipedia-en-unblock [13:06:10] *** ChanServ sets modes #wikipedia-en-unblock +v nixeagle [13:06:50] like I said, I'm not really sure what else to say [13:07:06] I think I've explained this as extensively and lucidly as I can [13:07:21] <GuidodB> You could say that people are allowed to remove dispute tags, or you could say the opposite [13:07:29] <UnBlockBot> 1 - User talk:70.88.210.129 NEW Blocked by admin User:Alison at 2008-05-09; 23:39:42 until 2009-05-09; 23:39:42: Abusing multiple accounts: Sockfarm creation / Checkuser block (ID 905103) [13:07:29] <UnBlockBot> Autoreport: there are 3 users in (1 new). [13:07:35] if you still feel your block should be reversed, post another unblock request [13:08:09] people are allowed to add or remove tags [13:08:11] mmm GuidodB just a warning, don't repeatedly post unblock tags... twice is about as much as you should do. [13:08:13] they're edits. :P [13:08:33] when you add or remove tags, you should do so with a general consensus (consensus does not have to be 100% agreement among all editors) [13:08:35] <GuidodB> they're not content edits [13:08:46] <GuidodB> nix, that is correct [13:08:55] okay, conduct edits. If you'd like, it still very much falls under WP:DE [13:08:58] <GuidodB> There was no consensus to remove the tags [13:09:25] <GuidodB> To place them needs less consensus [13:09:27] GuidodB, did you revert back and forth? What article is this? [13:09:42] <GuidodB> cfs [13:09:46] GuidodB, link please [13:09:47] <GuidodB> I only restored them [13:10:07] <GuidodB> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_fatigue_syndrome [13:10:11] nixeagle > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&action=history [13:10:27] slakr, that is exactly where I"m headed [13:10:32] bueno [13:10:44] * slakr slides a cold one in nixeagle's direction [13:10:45] GuidodB, your username is what? [13:10:52] <GuidodB> Guido den Broeder [13:11:17] how many additions and removals of that tag have there been in the last 7 days? [13:11:37] <GuidodB> Which tag? [13:11:54] GuidodB, all tags [13:12:10] <GuidodB> Zero [13:12:25] GuidodB, meaning? [13:12:29] Then why are you here? [13:12:43] <GuidodB> I am blocked for a month [13:12:54] <GuidodB> not a day, as is usual in case of 3RR violation [13:12:58] ok, how many additions and removals of that tag have their been in the last 14 days [13:13:04] <GuidodB> :-) [13:13:16] GuidodB, did you violate 3RR? [13:13:19] <GuidodB> 3, I think [13:13:23] Or were you just being disruptive? [13:13:37] <GuidodB> I believed I was undoing vandalism [13:14:16] <GuidodB> Since the npov tag clearly states: do not remove me [13:14:19] GuidodB, was the editor a new editor? Or someone that has been around for a while? [13:14:49] <GuidodB> Relatively new to this controversial article [13:15:06] GuidodB, but the editor has been around a while right... not your run of the mill vandal? [13:15:19] <GuidodB> Clearly unfamiliar with the concept of consensus [13:15:23] You should have known better in this case to constantantly revert back and forth [13:15:28] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#Remove_tags [13:15:29] oh wow [13:15:38] "" [13:15:47] ewps [13:15:48] pastefail [13:15:49] "Since in your complete and utter ignorance you have already thrashed all the pages and are threatening to continue on that road: let's leave the tags, shall we? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC) " [13:15:51] <GuidodB> Not a common vandal though [13:15:53] didn't see that. [13:16:07] yeah, *stands by what he said* block is valid. [13:16:17] !unblock [13:16:19] <UnBlockBot> 1 - User talk:70.88.210.129 Blocked by admin User:Alison at 2008-05-09; 23:39:42 until 2009-05-09; 23:39:42: Abusing multiple accounts: Sockfarm creation / Checkuser block (ID 905103) [13:16:19] <UnBlockBot> 2 - User talk:Leo.stabile Blocked by admin User:Moreschi at 2008-01-01; 23:30:44 for infinity: Troll (ID 736941) [13:16:19] <UnBlockBot> 3 - User talk:Mascotmayank Blocked by admin User:Orangemike at 2008-10-30; 00:25:05 for infinity: (ID 1193837) [13:16:22] <UnBlockBot> There are 3 users in (0 new). [13:16:28] <GuidodB> Perhaps, but what else could I do? [13:16:44] WP:DR [13:16:50] let someone else deal with it [13:16:53] GuidodB, you could have asked a 3rd editor to review. Regardless reverting multiple times is unproductive [13:16:53] ANI [13:16:57] 3O [13:17:16] MEDCAB, MEDCOM [13:17:26] lots of options [13:17:45] <GuidodB> Maybe, but the end result was that, the npov tag survived [13:17:50] *** GlassCobra_ (n=GlassCob@wikipedia/GlassCobra) has joined #wikipedia-en-unblock [13:17:50] *** ChanServ sets modes #wikipedia-en-unblock +v GlassCobra_ [13:18:09] <UnBlockBot> user:Slakr reviewed and declined to unblock user talk:70.88.210.129: ... which is blocked. — slakr\ talk / 18:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC) [13:18:09] <UnBlockBot> Handled: User talk:70.88.210.129 [13:18:09] <UnBlockBot> Autoreport: there are 2 users in (0 new). [13:18:17] GuidodB, you continued to push your point of view while there was a discussion going on, you failed to continue discussing. There is still currently one tag on that article that indicates there is a problem. [13:18:27] <GuidodB> I did not push a point of view [13:18:37] <GuidodB> I discussed plenty [13:19:05] <GuidodB> It's the other side that doesn't want to resolve the dispute [13:19:08] GuidodB, but you chose to revert multiple times and act disruptive. [13:19:17] <GuidodB> No [13:19:20] You had better options to you then to revert [13:19:24] POV was left on there by the other editors most of the time; you edit warred over two other tags in addition to it. [13:19:33] <GuidodB> No [13:20:11] GuidodB, until you understand why you were blocked, and that you had better options to you, you are not going to be unblocked. You can either listen and learn, or wait out your block. Your choice. [13:20:13] <GuidodB> Nix, I did tried to limit the disruption [13:20:25] <GuidodB> I understand why I was blocked [13:20:42] <GuidodB> I just don't agree with it [13:20:50] do you feel you are still in the right? [13:21:03] <GuidodB> Yes, but that's not the issue anymore [13:21:07] ... hence the reason the block is still valid, imo. [13:21:10] GuidodB, but yes it is the issue :) [13:21:22] <GuidodB> No, because I have promised not to act on my belief [13:21:29] * slakr endorses with doubleplus [13:22:00] <GuidodB> You can't force me to agree with something now, can you? [13:22:07] GuidodB, well then you can wait your block out. The point of blocks are to teach you. I suggest you read WP:1RR and WP:DR and see what options are availible to you. [13:22:13] support vote in mitosis even:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Symbol_full_support_vote.PNG [13:22:18] <GuidodB> Well the block teaches me nothing [13:22:41] so does that mean it needs to be extended until it does? [13:23:00] <GuidodB> An extension would still teach me nothing [13:23:08] <UnBlockBot> user:FisherQueen reviewed and declined to unblock user talk:Mascotmayank: You are promoting your company.  If you do not understand that you are promoting your company, then you will not know how to refrain from promoting it in the future. Because you will not be able to follow Wikipedia rules, the block will have to stay in effect. — FisherQueen (talk · Special:Contributions/F [13:23:08] <UnBlockBot> Handled: [[User talk:Mascotmayank [13:23:08] <UnBlockBot> Autoreport: there is one user in (0 new). [13:23:12] if you still believe your actions are justified, presumably you'll continue once the block expires [13:23:25] i.e., you will have learned nothing [13:23:26] <GuidodB> Why would I do that? [13:23:30] <UnBlockBot> user:FisherQueen reverted the last edit(s) to user talk:Leo.stabile [13:23:31] <UnBlockBot> Handled: User talk:Leo.stabile [13:23:31] <UnBlockBot> Autoreport: there are currently no users in [13:23:35] that's why I'm asking :P [13:23:46] !unblock [13:23:47] GuidodB, do you not understand that there are better ways then reverting multiple times over a dispute tag? [13:23:47] <UnBlockBot> There are currently no users in [13:23:56] yayyyy... 0 RFU [13:23:58] <GuidodB> I have promised not to, and I have never broken a promise in my life [13:23:59] * slakr throws confetti [13:24:31] <GuidodB> Nix: no, but i won't do it again [13:24:35] GuidodB, right, but would you do this on say... another article? [13:24:40] <GuidodB> No [13:24:52] you also have stated that you were already on 1RR prior to this [13:24:58] GuidodB, what would you do when faced with a situation like this? [13:25:00] <GuidodB> Yes, that is correct [13:25:10] <GuidodB> Nothing at all, nix [13:25:27] * nixeagle shuts up and goes to write a history of Algebraic number theory [13:25:38] lol [13:26:11] <GuidodB> I will simply not bother with tags at all anymore [13:27:21] *** GDonato quits (SendQ exceeded) [13:27:57] *** Krimpet (n=francine@wikimedia/Krimpet) has joined #wikipedia-en-unblock [13:27:57] *** ChanServ sets modes #wikipedia-en-unblock +v Krimpet [13:28:26] *** GDonato (n=GDonato@wikimedia/GDonato) has joined #wikipedia-en-unblock [13:28:26] *** ChanServ sets modes #wikipedia-en-unblock +v GDonato [13:28:37] * GuidodB thinks that the number theory should have been completed by now [13:29:28] <GuidodB> Hi GDonato [13:30:07] *** GlassCobra quits (Connection timed out) [13:33:43] GuidodB, ok, I've read your talk page. My problem here is that you have already violated your voluntary promise to stay within 1RR on articles, why should I believe you when you say you won't add the tags again? [13:34:06] <GuidodB> Where have I violated it? [13:35:07] "I already am on 1RR voluntarily, and have been for quite a while." [13:36:06] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=247261442 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=247261634 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=247275178 [13:36:07] <GuidodB> Yes, so? [13:36:07] <GuidodB> That of course doesn't pertain to undoing vandalism [13:36:23] GuidodB, you were not undoing vandalism, your comments do not even mention vandalism [13:36:27] (look at the diffs) [13:36:29] in fact [13:36:39] you only brought up vandalism after I brought it up in this conversation earlier. [13:36:46] <GuidodB> No [13:36:48] yes. [13:37:00] <GuidodB> There have been earlier conversations [13:37:08] GuidodB, your comments at the time do not include "reverting vandalism" or 'rvv" [13:37:35] <GuidodB> Is that obligatory? [13:37:42] Now, you can admit you made a mistake and explain to me why you won't break your promise again, or we can simply not unblock you. [13:37:52] GuidodB, when reverting vandalism... uh normally yes. [13:38:02] You normally identify the prior revision as vandalism [13:38:03] <GuidodB> Ok, I didn't know that [13:38:10] -_- [13:38:22] <GuidodB> Never seen it done, in fact [13:38:47] GuidodB, regardless of what you thought, this was a content dispute, not a reversion of "simple" vandalism. (there was no insertion of vulgar words etc) [13:38:58] [13:02:02] like I said, I don't care; unless the tag removal is blatant vandalism, it's edit warring to restore it repeatedly.  | [13:02:52] <GuidodB> I thought it was blatant vandalism [13:39:00] I grepped the log [13:39:11] that was the first time you said "vandalism" or anything close to it. [13:39:21] directly after I said it, using my exact words. [13:39:22] <GuidodB> Today [13:39:33] I have logs for the past month, at least :P [13:39:34] Oh you did it again, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=247275178 [13:39:49] <GuidodB> Slakr: eod with you [13:40:00] eod? [13:40:11] slakr, I'm sure that is end of debate... if it is, you can leave. [13:40:17] <GuidodB> Nix, as I said: I thought I was following policy [13:40:18] slakr, err... GuidodB you can leave [13:40:38] GuidodB, well you were wrong, do you understand now that you were wrong? [13:40:50] * slakr sighs [13:41:22] <GuidodB> Nix, that will have to be discussed on the policy talk page, can't say either way at this time [13:41:33] *** [GuidodB] whois info:  GuidodB!i=3efb1eb6@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-065c85ab5515e34a [13:41:33] *** [GuidodB] ====================================================================================== [13:41:33] *** [GuidodB] gecos: (((ip removed --slakr))) [13:41:33] *** [GuidodB] chans: #wikipedia-en-unblock @#nl-wikisage [13:41:33] *** [GuidodB] server: irc.freenode.net (http://freenode.net/) [13:41:33] *** [GuidodB] special: is identified to services [13:41:33] *** [GuidodB] special: is signed on as account GuidodB [13:41:33] *** [GuidodB] idle: 01:00:12, signon: Fri, Oct 31 10:16:30 [13:41:33] *** [GuidodB] -- [13:41:42] GuidodB, in fact you knew to mark vandalism as such before today anyway. [13:41:44] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder&diff=prev&oldid=248191445 [13:41:57] So you just lied to me [13:42:22] well I think that just about clears this one up [13:42:24] <GuidodB> Right, call me a liar, excellent admin behaviour [13:42:24] *** ChanServ sets modes #wikipedia-en-unblock +o slakr [13:42:34] GuidodB, any reason I should not? [13:42:34] *** slakr sets modes #wikipedia-en-unblock +d (((ip removed --slakr))) [13:42:35] *** GuidodB (i=3efb1eb6@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-065c85ab5515e34a) has left #wikipedia-en-unblock