User talk:Amaury/2010/December

2010 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • December

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 29

You appear to have unilaterally removed a few items [1] from an ongoing debate that you have not participated in directly, without any consensus to do so. Could you explain this please? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! I certainly can explain. Yesterday, while looking over some of the articles that I've been editing, I noticed that this message appeared above the information box: "‹ The template (Infobox animanga character) is being considered for deletion. ›", and, looking at the discussion, it appears that it's because the template is unnecessary because it's barely used on any articles, which is false. It is used on a lot of Digimon articles. By the way, I explained myself here, so I'm not sure why you said it unexplained. - Amaury (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't just remove it like that, regardless of your intent. Technically what you did could be considered vandalism, if something has been properly nominated for deletion you need to discuss the issue at the deletion discussion page, not just decide the nominator was wrong and remove it. Noting the removal in an edit summary does not equate with participating in the deletion discussion, the whole point is to discuss the issue and arrive at a consensus about what to do with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Characters_templates. You are welcome to participate in that discussion.  Frank  |  talk  02:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely due to edit warring

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring on Lalamon. . I told you in the plain language that if you ever edit warred again, I would block you indefinitely. You don't seem to be able to comprehend the policy on edit warring. You inserted the same information three times in the same article, and you made absolutely no attempt to discuss the matter with anyone. That is edit warring, and if you didn't realize it was edit warring after all the warnings and blocks in your past, you apparently lack the competence required to comprehend the edit warring policy. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Convenience link to my clear and unambiguous warning on this topic: [2]. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) {{unblock|reason=''Before I start, I apologize in advance if anything offends you. I did my best to stay [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] when writing this.'' Did you happen to see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=402547363 this]? I guess it could be considered edit warring, and if it is, it's a dispute at best rather than an actual edit war. However, I was not edit warring, and, yes, I do know that, even if 24 hours pass, certain cases can still be considered edit warring, but, from what I understand from reading [[WP:3RR]] over the time I've been here on Wikipedia, an edit war is when the same two users and / or anonymous IPs edit war within 24 hours. However, there were several IPs reverting or removing my actions, meaning that I technically never even edit-warred, but if you still want to think that I edit-warred, then I can't say anything to that, as it's your opinion. Also, reading the rules, excluding the 24-hour one, of course, I see: "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard." I provided a clearly visible edit summary. Anyway, I was being smart today. In that protection request, I said that I refused to continue reverting knowing my history because I didn't want to be blocked again. I didn't say this there, but in my head I was thinking that, if my actions were to get reverted again, instead of continuing to revert, I was going to do exactly what the last part of the quoted text said, which meant going there next time I got reverted. I ask you to please reconsider your decision. I wouldn't even mind a short block. However, after reading this unblock request, I ask you to please give it some ''extensive'' thought instead of just outright declining it, and if that means that you won't reply until tomorrow or something, then that's how it may end up being. Also, seeing as you're the blocking administrator, the choice is all yours -- we don't have to wait for another administrator to respond or anything. Also, I ask you to look at this way: If you still do consider that edit warring, you have to admit that it is significantly better than other edit wars. It was only on one page, and it wasn't with just one user / anonymous IP. For some final notes, I really don't appreciate you insulting me. Also, if this is as big of a deal as you say it is, then why did you not block me earlier? You're, of course, welcome to comment if you'd like to ask some questions, make a proposal, or whatever before making a decision. - [[User:Amaury|Amaury]] ([[User talk:Amaury#top|talk]]) 04:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)}}

It's not me that says repeatedly inserting the same information into an article when you keep getting reverted is edit warring, it's Wikipedia policy, and a policy you were already well aware of at that . Asking for protection after you have already edit warred does not excuse it. Your unblock request reads like yet another denial of the fact that you were edit warring at all and some rather desperate wiki-lawyering to try and diminish your own culpability. I'm sorry if you're offended, but clearly mollycoddling you and trusting you to learn your lesson about what edit warring is and is not was not an effective strategy. I don't know how much more clear I could have been with you that this would be the result if you ever edit-warred again. You made the last revert to this article earlier today, so I'm not sure why you ask why I didn't do this earlier. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I should have been more clear there. I meant that if I made that last revert this morning, why was nothing done until a few hours ago? Also, I wasn't going to come back here until tomorrow, but after getting some suggestions, I have decided to retract my unblock request and sleep over it and provide a better unblock request tomorrow. Thanks for the comment. I do appreciate it. Oh, and I have a little favor to ask. Since I can only edit my talk page, would you mind blanking this since I cannot change it and keep it up-to-date for the time being? - Amaury (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Done  7  06:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but you could you just blank it? I'd rather just have it say Zhou Yu is somewhere. :) - Amaury (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I thought you'd learned your lesson from your last block. That was pretty daft to get into an edit war knowing you were under the threat of an indef. Not your smartest move. You'll have to sit this one out for a while and then we might be able to discuss conditions for your unblocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It's nice to hear that, while low, there's still some hope for me. - Amaury (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Status and user page editing versus building an encyclopedia

I've refrained from commenting on this before now because I know you get upset easily and this is not directly related to the reason why you are blocked, but maybe you should rethink your priorities. You edit your userpage and your status more often than you actually edit Wikipedia. For example, in the period between November 25-30, you made exactly two edits to articles, but you updated your status 23 times. Out of your last 500 edits, 178 were to your user page. This isn't about us and what we do with our lives, it's about making an encyclopedia. I know you already know that but it seemed like a reminder was in order. I'm not asking for a reply to this and I'm not looking to have a debate on the subject, I'm just pointing it out and leaving it at that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How to get unblocked

I know you guys will want more than this, so I will be more than happy to oblige when you guys ask, but I was thinking that I could be unblocked at 12:01 AM (PST) on January 1st, 2011, and I could make it a New Year's resolution to not edit war, because, now that I think about it, I realize that I have been trying to deny that I was edit warring in my past few edit wars. I have edit warred in the past, and, no matter how small it was, I did edit war on Lalamon. Anyway, I'll leave it there for now. Thanks in advance to the people that read this. - Amaury (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. You made a very similar statement back in October. You indicated that you understood edit warring, and that you would not do it again. This is something like your eighth block for edit warring. Nearly every time you make a promise like this. The Boy Who Cried Wolf applies, you have been trusted time and again and every time that trust has turned out to be misplaced. There's no promise you can make at this point that we can believe. I'm afraid the time has come for you to consider the standard offer for blocked users. In a case like this, where a user is not a vandal or troll but nevertheless repeatedly breaches important site policies this often the best option for an absolute last chance. It's not easy. You will need to go away, entirely, for several months. Don't resort to socking, request unblock or even edit your talk page. Do feel free to edit other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikimedia Commons or the Simple English Wikipedia. Establishing a good track record at one of our sister sites can go a long way, but you will need to be patient and actually wait 3-6 months before even asking about this again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I know it's hard to believe, so I won't make an argument there, but I really did mean it about it being a New Year's resolution. After looking back at my previous edit wars, I finally realized that the way I've been handling things was wrong. Unfortunately, I realized it too late, as I am now indefinitely blocked. Anyway, my last edit will be on January 1st, 2011 to archive December 2010, and that'll be it. I'll, of course, have to get a friend to help, as I can only edit this page and not my talk page subpages, userpage, etc. It'd be nice if, when a user gets blocked, people could still edit anything that belongs to them, such as their userpage, userpage sub pages, talk page sub pages, etc (in my case, say, for example, User talk:Zhou Yu/March 2010 or whatever), but I won't make an argument there, either. Back on topic, though, how does WP:OFFER work, exactly? - Amaury (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the standard offer approach is unlikely to work with this user. In the past, his user page has been relatively upfront about his history of problematic editing on other sites. If he's required to take a break from here, he's likely just to vandalize somewhere else, put the return date on his calendar, and come back with an unblock request, having—here, anyway—complied with the terms of the deal. If this user is to be rehabilitated, I think it will require some degree of close mentoring. Unfortunately, the user has proved time and again to be incredibly thin-skinned about even the most courteously worded criticism of his behavior here, so I'm not optimistic. But simply having him come back later is not a viable option. ^Bongo_matic 17:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That is why I recommended that he demonstrate good faith by contributing to another Wikimedia project in a constructive manner. The main thing I would be looking to see is an ability to discuss instead of revert warring. Simple would be a good place to demonstrate that. If he actually edited over there, not just playing with user pages but actual substantive editing, and managed to not get blocked and to actually participate in civil discussion with other users, that would go a long way indeed. I suppose in the interest of fairness I should mention that this is only a suggestion, and that the offer is simply a convenient framework for dealing with users with long-term behavioral issues. It is not policy and it is not guaranteed that you will be unblocked even if you follow its advice to the letter. I brought it up as it is the only path I can see that has a reasonable chance of succeeding. I've never seen mentoring work in a case like this but if somebody stepped up in the future I suppose it could be considered. I am inclined to think that although this block was imposed solely by me, any future request should be reviewed by the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's better than nothing. Could I have the link to this wiki you're speaking of? Also, if Wikiquote is part of the Wikipedia family, I could demonstrate my goodness there, as I've done some editing there before, but I eventually forgot about it. - Amaury (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Your "friend" Beeblebrox mentioned it and I sent it in the email. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just created an account, but I won't start editing until 1/1/2011 for a fresh start. - Amaury (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)