User talk:CheesyBiscuit
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Hi, CheesyBiscuit. I see you reverted my change, pointing out (reasonably) that Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 said the same thing. I believe that in both places the phrase is misleading, and I have opened a discussion on it on Talk:Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. --ColinFine (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Armenian genocide
[edit]Hiding behind or perpetrating geno... Let math be free!!!!!!
Actually it was addressed to TheDarkLordSeth, but there was some edit conflict. Sardur (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
April 2010
[edit]
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
CheesyBiscuit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please could you explain why this is justified? I realise it's for the 1RR rule on the Armenian Genocide page, but the edits I was reverting were bordering on vandalism - I'd asked the user making them to refrain from making those same edits without discussing them further, since there was a clear consensus against them (which I wasn't involved with); I was reverting them while a decision was pending on the administrators edit war noticeboard. I hadn't edited the article at all until then, except to add an image to it, which was uncontroversial and not opposed. A block from all pages doesn't seem appropriate - I will quite happily leave pages related to that subject alone if asked to do so, but I was acting entirely in good faith to maintain the quality of the pages. This ban seems more like a punishment than a prevention, since the issue at hand is resolved and I have no intention of making further edits to those pages anyway. Furthermore, I wasn't provided with any sort of warning at all. In the actions I took, I believed I was following a broad community consensus - all the recent editors to that page were of a similar opinion to myself apart from one. I was quite open about what I was going to do, and would have refrained from doing so if asked, but noone did so. Additionally, many other users (Andranikpasha, Serouj, MarshallBagramyan) have also violated the 1RR rule in reverting TheDarkLordSeth, indicating a broad community consensus against his/her edits. They haven't been blocked (and there is no need to), which makes it further seem like this block is directed at me as punishment rather than prevention.
Decline reason:
Your second sentence says it all: "I was reverting borderline vandalism". It wasn't vandalism, it was a content dispute, and therefore was a violation of the 1RR that you apparently were already aware of. As you were aware of it, there was no need for a warning. It's a mere 31hr block (not a ban) for a clear violation - nothing to be worried about unless it happens again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:02, 7 April 2010 (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.
- But, as stated, I have no intention of making further edits to that article - making this a punitive, rather than preventative, block. And that's not what they're for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheesyBiscuit (talk • contribs)
- Be aware that as per the block notice, I have opened a community discussion at WP:ANI regarding this unblock request. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thankyou. I presume I can't comment on any pages elsewhere; do I do anything further with the template below, or does the discussion you reference supersede that/run alongside it/how does it work? CheesyBiscuit (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it makes very little sense to to an Arbcomm appeal for a short block such as 31hrs - it takes longer than that to even be read. For this reason, the ANI discussion should suffice...although, clearly, it's not looking good so far. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by CheesyBiscuit
[edit]Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- CheesyBiscuit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – CheesyBiscuit (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- 31 hour block
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by CheesyBiscuit
[edit]The edits I was reverting were bordering on vandalism - I'd asked the user making them to refrain from making those same edits without discussing them further, since there was a clear consensus against them (which I wasn't involved with); I was reverting them while a decision was pending on the administrators edit war noticeboard. I hadn't edited the article at all until then, except to add an image to it, which was uncontroversial and not opposed. A block from all pages doesn't seem appropriate - I will quite happily leave pages related to that subject alone if asked to do so, but I was acting entirely in good faith to maintain the quality of the pages. This ban seems more like a punishment than a prevention, since the issue at hand is resolved and I have no intention of making further edits to those pages anyway.
Furthermore, I wasn't provided with any sort of warning at all. In the actions I took, I believed I was following a broad community consensus - all the recent editors to that page were of a similar opinion to myself apart from one. I was quite open about what I was going to do, and would have refrained from doing so if asked, but noone did so.
Additionally, many other users (Andranikpasha, Serouj, MarshallBagramyan) have also violated the 1RR rule in reverting TheDarkLordSeth, indicating a broad community consensus against his/her edits. They haven't been blocked (and there is no need to), which makes it further seem like this block is directed at me as punishment rather than prevention.
A topic or article ban would be far more appropriate than a total block.
Statement by Tim Song
[edit]Statement by (involved editor 1)
[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)
[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by CheesyBiscuit
[edit]Result of the appeal by CheesyBiscuit
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
"Rats with bushy tails" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Rats with bushy tails and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 5 § Rats with bushy tails until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)