Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bidgee: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:28, 28 June 2012 editBidgee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,550 edits Undid revision 499784675 by TParis (talk) Bais← Previous edit Revision as of 17:28, 28 June 2012 edit undoErikHaugen (talk | contribs)Administrators15,850 edits reply to Bidgee about BIRDS and admins; about punitive blocksNext edit →
Line 9: Line 9:
:::::::Again you've not addressed the fact the block is punitive one. ] (]) 17:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC) :::::::Again you've not addressed the fact the block is punitive one. ] (]) 17:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Seems that Jimfbleak is treated like a king and I'm treated like a fucking criminal. ] (]) 17:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC) ::::::::Seems that Jimfbleak is treated like a king and I'm treated like a fucking criminal. ] (]) 17:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::The block isn't punative when you will not agree to "stop reverting without a chance for discussion." That makes it a preventative block. If you agree to stop move warring, you will be unblocked. It's as simple as that. You hold the power to unblock. Quit the disruptive actions and you'll be unblocked. Please explain how on earth that can be construed as not preventative? (Or simply agree to quit move warring, and I'll unblock you).--v/r - ]] 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::(ec)I don't know how to address the punitive issue. I blocked to stop the endless string of rapid page moves and reverts; that is the only reason. I unblocked Jimfbleak because he agreed to stop and even avoid the pages, I would be more than happy to unblock you if you would agree to stop reverting moves without discussion. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 17:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Bidgee—it's true that BIRDS is quite vigilant about reverting moves to lowercase. Usually someone drops a note on the talk page of the editor who originally moved a page to lowercase, eg ], letting the user know about the ponderous amount of discussion that has taken place on this issue. I don't think the consensus for uppercase is nearly as broad as it is made out to be, but it does seem like some discussion would need to take place before we start moving articles to the <s>correct</s> lowercase version ''en masse''. I believe that was in essence the point Jim was trying to make to you. They do occasionally make moves of lots of pages as names change; I think these are generally seen as uncontroversial and sure, admins are enlisted to help carry these out if there's an {{tl|R caps}} in the way or something. Regarding ] vs. ]; I'm a bit confused—are you saying it should be at ]? I don't think anyone wants to stop you from opening any RMs along these lines. Or just moving pages and then opening an RM if someone objects in order to get wider discussion. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 17:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

:Come back Bidgee - You do good work - we need you. Get unblocked and work it out with more discussion. - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 16:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC) :Come back Bidgee - You do good work - we need you. Get unblocked and work it out with more discussion. - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 16:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::I will not come back while a project highjacks articles on a so called consensus which they will not discuss (this goes back a bit), breaches ] and uses its own Admins whom are part of the Bird project to move articles that clearly the local name is far more ]. ] (]) 16:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC) ::I will not come back while a project highjacks articles on a so called consensus which they will not discuss (this goes back a bit), breaches ] and uses its own Admins whom are part of the Bird project to move articles that clearly the local name is far more ]. ] (]) 16:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm certainly sympathetic to your point about local consensus, but we can't resolve it this way. I don't think Jimfbleak used any administrative functions in all this, by the way; as far as I can tell Jim wasn't acting as an admin at all. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 17:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC) :::I'm certainly sympathetic to your point about local consensus, but we can't resolve it this way. I don't think Jimfbleak used any administrative functions in all this, by the way; as far as I can tell Jim wasn't acting as an admin at all. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 17:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::::He did use the . ] (]) 17:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC) ::::He did use the . ] (]) 17:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Hmm; perhaps you are right. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 17:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Doc9871 for reverting the troll(s) rubbish, would give a barn star to you but can't. ] (]) 16:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you Doc9871 for reverting the troll(s) rubbish, would give a barn star to you but can't. ] (]) 16:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
As of today, I'll no longer be contributing to any Wikimedia project, that also includes where I still have a backlog of photographs that were to be uploaded. I see know point when long term editors get treated like shit. I see no point any more. ] (]) 17:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC) As of today, I'll no longer be contributing to any Wikimedia project, that also includes where I still have a backlog of photographs that were to be uploaded. I see know point when long term editors get treated like shit. I see no point any more. ] (]) 17:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:28, 28 June 2012

Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.
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).

Bidgee (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

One sided block as the blocking admin has failed to block the other editor and the other Admin also abused there tools and breaches WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Bidgee (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Umm, why do you both think the other editor wasn't blocked? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2012 (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.

According to User:Jimfbleak's block log, he was unblocked for agreeing to "avoid the articles for now". If you make the same agreement, I see not reason not to treat the situation exactly the same.--v/r - TP 16:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I cannot agree on "avoid the articles for now", far too broad as it would mean I can't edit nor comment in any move discussion. Also seems wrong for the Admin to be unblocked since they know that others in the Bird project will do the dirty work anyway. Bird project will not show any diffs to a broad or site wide consensus for the IOC names and the capitaisations, only stuff I've seen has been local. Jimfbleak used the rollback tool on Australian wood duck and . Bidgee (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm also concerned that ErikHaugen is far more talkative on Jimfbleak's talk page but not on mine? This is really was a punitive block. Bidgee (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to respond to everything both of you have said. I don't think anyone is asking you to avoid move discussions, or RfCs at WP:CAPS, etc. I'm certainly not. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I cannot agree on "avoid the articles for now"—Would you at least agree to stop reverting without a chance for discussion? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Bird project uses its talk page to revert contested renames and also uses the talk page to get involved (those whom are part of the Birds project) Admins to move them if a non-Admin has a "road block". I should have the right to restore the name as it was (ie: Australian Wood Duck rather then Maned Duck) or per WP:COMMONNAME. Bidgee (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Again you've not addressed the fact the block is punitive one. Bidgee (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Seems that Jimfbleak is treated like a king and I'm treated like a fucking criminal. Bidgee (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The block isn't punative when you will not agree to "stop reverting without a chance for discussion." That makes it a preventative block. If you agree to stop move warring, you will be unblocked. It's as simple as that. You hold the power to unblock. Quit the disruptive actions and you'll be unblocked. Please explain how on earth that can be construed as not preventative? (Or simply agree to quit move warring, and I'll unblock you).--v/r - TP 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I don't know how to address the punitive issue. I blocked to stop the endless string of rapid page moves and reverts; that is the only reason. I unblocked Jimfbleak because he agreed to stop and even avoid the pages, I would be more than happy to unblock you if you would agree to stop reverting moves without discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Bidgee—it's true that BIRDS is quite vigilant about reverting moves to lowercase. Usually someone drops a note on the talk page of the editor who originally moved a page to lowercase, eg here, letting the user know about the ponderous amount of discussion that has taken place on this issue. I don't think the consensus for uppercase is nearly as broad as it is made out to be, but it does seem like some discussion would need to take place before we start moving articles to the correct lowercase version en masse. I believe that was in essence the point Jim was trying to make to you. They do occasionally make moves of lots of pages as names change; I think these are generally seen as uncontroversial and sure, admins are enlisted to help carry these out if there's an {{R caps}} in the way or something. Regarding Australian Wood Duck vs. Maned Duck; I'm a bit confused—are you saying it should be at Maned Duck? I don't think anyone wants to stop you from opening any RMs along these lines. Or just moving pages and then opening an RM if someone objects in order to get wider discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Come back Bidgee - You do good work - we need you. Get unblocked and work it out with more discussion. - Youreallycan 16:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I will not come back while a project highjacks articles on a so called consensus which they will not discuss (this goes back a bit), breaches WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and uses its own Admins whom are part of the Bird project to move articles that clearly the local name is far more commons. Bidgee (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm certainly sympathetic to your point about local consensus, but we can't resolve it this way. I don't think Jimfbleak used any administrative functions in all this, by the way; as far as I can tell Jim wasn't acting as an admin at all. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
He did use the delete tool. Bidgee (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm; perhaps you are right. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Doc9871 for reverting the troll(s) rubbish, would give a barn star to you but can't. Bidgee (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC) As of today, I'll no longer be contributing to any Wikimedia project, that also includes Commons where I still have a backlog of photographs that were to be uploaded. I see know point when long term editors get treated like shit. I see no point any more. Bidgee (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Bidgee: Difference between revisions Add topic