| Revision as of 10:35, 30 October 2010 view sourceMickMacNee (talk | contribs)23,386 edits ubr← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:45, 30 October 2010 view source LemonMonday (talk | contribs)568 edits →October 2010Next edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| {{unblock|1=This is a completely invalid 'indef' block. There is no way I could ever hope to defend myself against such an obviously bad faith as a vague hand wave to a block log and an amateur pyschology review of my personality and future 'threat level' to the pedia, so how is anyone going to be able to review it fairly and objectively or ever take any assurance from me, certainly one that wouldn't see Sandstein taking them to arbitration? This cannot be lifted by any action from me, so this is not an indef block, but a unilateral community ban seeking post-ban consensus, without so much as a by your leave or the redlink ] ever turning blue, ever. Infact, I've never even been under so much as a 'civility parole' before, let alone anything so serious a sanction as to warrant this unilateral ban. Admins are not supposed to have the power to do this to good faith contributors who are not right there and then charging around adding 'Dave is a tool' to articles. If they did, they could pretty much unilaterally ban anyone they didn't like and who hadn't had the presence of mind to routinely drop their history and create a new account every now and again. That's certainly not an environment that fosters good community cohesion or encourages people to be truthful and honest. I've never cleaned my account history like that, but perhaps I was naive? If Sandstein thinks he has the support to have me community banned, based on my entire wiki-career, then he should have done it properly, and shown that consensus existed first, instead of doing what he just did, and turning up at a stale ANI thread to demand someone give a him a reason not to indef block me, and when unsurprisingly not receiving any contrary response in just 8 hours (and only one support too!), unilaterally banning me. I wasn't even watching that thread anymore, believing it had died out out of lack of interest, the whole thing was over as far as I was concerned in terms of immediate issues, and unsurprisingly, I've been asleep in the 8 hours he waited for feedback on the 'long term' issues, because it was night time here. He clearly dumped the accusation at ANI before going to bed, and then banning me was apparently task no.1 in his breakfast routine this morning. This is not good enough in terms of WP:ADMIN, WP:DR (because Sandstein clearly has a personal issue with me, and is not imposing this ban on me on behalf of the community in any way), or WP:BLOCK - ''"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users."'' I wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting any admin to unilaterally ban someone if simply giving nothing better as justification that it would 'prevent damage' than a vague hand wave to their block log, one or two diffs of recent actions which are not ongoing, and a clear general dislike for their attitude, without ever having even raised so much as an Rfc on it. That ANI thread ironically shows that. ] (]) 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)}} | {{unblock|1=This is a completely invalid 'indef' block. There is no way I could ever hope to defend myself against such an obviously bad faith as a vague hand wave to a block log and an amateur pyschology review of my personality and future 'threat level' to the pedia, so how is anyone going to be able to review it fairly and objectively or ever take any assurance from me, certainly one that wouldn't see Sandstein taking them to arbitration? This cannot be lifted by any action from me, so this is not an indef block, but a unilateral community ban seeking post-ban consensus, without so much as a by your leave or the redlink ] ever turning blue, ever. Infact, I've never even been under so much as a 'civility parole' before, let alone anything so serious a sanction as to warrant this unilateral ban. Admins are not supposed to have the power to do this to good faith contributors who are not right there and then charging around adding 'Dave is a tool' to articles. If they did, they could pretty much unilaterally ban anyone they didn't like and who hadn't had the presence of mind to routinely drop their history and create a new account every now and again. That's certainly not an environment that fosters good community cohesion or encourages people to be truthful and honest. I've never cleaned my account history like that, but perhaps I was naive? If Sandstein thinks he has the support to have me community banned, based on my entire wiki-career, then he should have done it properly, and shown that consensus existed first, instead of doing what he just did, and turning up at a stale ANI thread to demand someone give a him a reason not to indef block me, and when unsurprisingly not receiving any contrary response in just 8 hours (and only one support too!), unilaterally banning me. I wasn't even watching that thread anymore, believing it had died out out of lack of interest, the whole thing was over as far as I was concerned in terms of immediate issues, and unsurprisingly, I've been asleep in the 8 hours he waited for feedback on the 'long term' issues, because it was night time here. He clearly dumped the accusation at ANI before going to bed, and then banning me was apparently task no.1 in his breakfast routine this morning. This is not good enough in terms of WP:ADMIN, WP:DR (because Sandstein clearly has a personal issue with me, and is not imposing this ban on me on behalf of the community in any way), or WP:BLOCK - ''"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users."'' I wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting any admin to unilaterally ban someone if simply giving nothing better as justification that it would 'prevent damage' than a vague hand wave to their block log, one or two diffs of recent actions which are not ongoing, and a clear general dislike for their attitude, without ever having even raised so much as an Rfc on it. That ANI thread ironically shows that. ] (]) 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)}} | ||
| Yes, I've mentioned the timing issue at AN/I. It's a bloody scandal. Just one editor commented in the time between block threat and action. ] ] 10:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:45, 30 October 2010
Welcome to my talk page!
- Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
- If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
- Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|MickMacNee}}.
- I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
- Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
- Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stickee (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Beat me to it, had to go out before I had time to notify. Thanks Stickee. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Emperor of Exmoor.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Emperor of Exmoor.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --JohnBlackburnedeeds 10:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
October 2010
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 07:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- MickMacNee, see my comments in the AN/I thread to explain why I support this block. And further, I agree that an unblock should not occur unless editing restrictions are developed and agreed upon by you. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 08:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is a completely invalid 'indef' block. There is no way I could ever hope to defend myself against such an obviously bad faith charge as a vague hand wave to a block log and an amateur pyschology review of my personality and future 'threat level' to the pedia, so how is anyone going to be able to review it fairly and objectively or ever take any assurance from me, certainly one that wouldn't see Sandstein taking them to arbitration? This cannot be lifted by any action from me, so this is not an indef block, but a unilateral community ban seeking post-ban consensus, without so much as a by your leave or the redlink WP:Requests for comment/MickMacNee ever turning blue, ever. Infact, I've never even been under so much as a 'civility parole' before, let alone anything so serious a sanction as to warrant this unilateral ban. Admins are not supposed to have the power to do this to good faith contributors who are not right there and then charging around adding 'Dave is a tool' to articles. If they did, they could pretty much unilaterally ban anyone they didn't like and who hadn't had the presence of mind to routinely drop their history and create a new account every now and again. That's certainly not an environment that fosters good community cohesion or encourages people to be truthful and honest. I've never cleaned my account history like that, but perhaps I was naive? If Sandstein thinks he has the support to have me community banned, based on my entire wiki-career, then he should have done it properly, and shown that consensus existed first, instead of doing what he just did, and turning up at a stale ANI thread to demand someone give a him a reason not to indef block me, and when unsurprisingly not receiving any contrary response in just 8 hours (and only one support too!), unilaterally banning me. I wasn't even watching that thread anymore, believing it had died out out of lack of interest, the whole thing was over as far as I was concerned in terms of immediate issues, and unsurprisingly, I've been asleep in the 8 hours he waited for feedback on the 'long term' issues, because it was night time here. He clearly dumped the accusation at ANI before going to bed, and then banning me was apparently task no.1 in his breakfast routine this morning. This is not good enough in terms of WP:ADMIN, WP:DR (because Sandstein clearly has a personal issue with me, and is not imposing this ban on me on behalf of the community in any way), or WP:BLOCK - "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users." I wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting any admin to unilaterally ban someone if simply giving nothing better as justification that it would 'prevent damage' than a vague hand wave to their block log, one or two diffs of recent actions which are not ongoing, and a clear general dislike for their attitude, without ever having even raised so much as an Rfc on it. That ANI thread ironically shows that. MickMacNee (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This is a completely invalid 'indef' block. There is no way I could ever hope to defend myself against such an obviously bad faith as a vague hand wave to a block log and an amateur pyschology review of my personality and future 'threat level' to the pedia, so how is anyone going to be able to review it fairly and objectively or ever take any assurance from me, certainly one that wouldn't see Sandstein taking them to arbitration? This cannot be lifted by any action from me, so this is not an indef block, but a unilateral community ban seeking post-ban consensus, without so much as a by your leave or the redlink ] ever turning blue, ever. Infact, I've never even been under so much as a 'civility parole' before, let alone anything so serious a sanction as to warrant this unilateral ban. Admins are not supposed to have the power to do this to good faith contributors who are not right there and then charging around adding 'Dave is a tool' to articles. If they did, they could pretty much unilaterally ban anyone they didn't like and who hadn't had the presence of mind to routinely drop their history and create a new account every now and again. That's certainly not an environment that fosters good community cohesion or encourages people to be truthful and honest. I've never cleaned my account history like that, but perhaps I was naive? If Sandstein thinks he has the support to have me community banned, based on my entire wiki-career, then he should have done it properly, and shown that consensus existed first, instead of doing what he just did, and turning up at a stale ANI thread to demand someone give a him a reason not to indef block me, and when unsurprisingly not receiving any contrary response in just 8 hours (and only one support too!), unilaterally banning me. I wasn't even watching that thread anymore, believing it had died out out of lack of interest, the whole thing was over as far as I was concerned in terms of immediate issues, and unsurprisingly, I've been asleep in the 8 hours he waited for feedback on the 'long term' issues, because it was night time here. He clearly dumped the accusation at ANI before going to bed, and then banning me was apparently task no.1 in his breakfast routine this morning. This is not good enough in terms of WP:ADMIN, WP:DR (because Sandstein clearly has a personal issue with me, and is not imposing this ban on me on behalf of the community in any way), or WP:BLOCK - ''"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users."'' I wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting any admin to unilaterally ban someone if simply giving nothing better as justification that it would 'prevent damage' than a vague hand wave to their block log, one or two diffs of recent actions which are not ongoing, and a clear general dislike for their attitude, without ever having even raised so much as an Rfc on it. That ANI thread ironically shows that. ] (]) 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=This is a completely invalid 'indef' block. There is no way I could ever hope to defend myself against such an obviously bad faith as a vague hand wave to a block log and an amateur pyschology review of my personality and future 'threat level' to the pedia, so how is anyone going to be able to review it fairly and objectively or ever take any assurance from me, certainly one that wouldn't see Sandstein taking them to arbitration? This cannot be lifted by any action from me, so this is not an indef block, but a unilateral community ban seeking post-ban consensus, without so much as a by your leave or the redlink ] ever turning blue, ever. Infact, I've never even been under so much as a 'civility parole' before, let alone anything so serious a sanction as to warrant this unilateral ban. Admins are not supposed to have the power to do this to good faith contributors who are not right there and then charging around adding 'Dave is a tool' to articles. If they did, they could pretty much unilaterally ban anyone they didn't like and who hadn't had the presence of mind to routinely drop their history and create a new account every now and again. That's certainly not an environment that fosters good community cohesion or encourages people to be truthful and honest. I've never cleaned my account history like that, but perhaps I was naive? If Sandstein thinks he has the support to have me community banned, based on my entire wiki-career, then he should have done it properly, and shown that consensus existed first, instead of doing what he just did, and turning up at a stale ANI thread to demand someone give a him a reason not to indef block me, and when unsurprisingly not receiving any contrary response in just 8 hours (and only one support too!), unilaterally banning me. I wasn't even watching that thread anymore, believing it had died out out of lack of interest, the whole thing was over as far as I was concerned in terms of immediate issues, and unsurprisingly, I've been asleep in the 8 hours he waited for feedback on the 'long term' issues, because it was night time here. He clearly dumped the accusation at ANI before going to bed, and then banning me was apparently task no.1 in his breakfast routine this morning. This is not good enough in terms of WP:ADMIN, WP:DR (because Sandstein clearly has a personal issue with me, and is not imposing this ban on me on behalf of the community in any way), or WP:BLOCK - ''"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users."'' I wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting any admin to unilaterally ban someone if simply giving nothing better as justification that it would 'prevent damage' than a vague hand wave to their block log, one or two diffs of recent actions which are not ongoing, and a clear general dislike for their attitude, without ever having even raised so much as an Rfc on it. That ANI thread ironically shows that. ] (]) 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=This is a completely invalid 'indef' block. There is no way I could ever hope to defend myself against such an obviously bad faith as a vague hand wave to a block log and an amateur pyschology review of my personality and future 'threat level' to the pedia, so how is anyone going to be able to review it fairly and objectively or ever take any assurance from me, certainly one that wouldn't see Sandstein taking them to arbitration? This cannot be lifted by any action from me, so this is not an indef block, but a unilateral community ban seeking post-ban consensus, without so much as a by your leave or the redlink ] ever turning blue, ever. Infact, I've never even been under so much as a 'civility parole' before, let alone anything so serious a sanction as to warrant this unilateral ban. Admins are not supposed to have the power to do this to good faith contributors who are not right there and then charging around adding 'Dave is a tool' to articles. If they did, they could pretty much unilaterally ban anyone they didn't like and who hadn't had the presence of mind to routinely drop their history and create a new account every now and again. That's certainly not an environment that fosters good community cohesion or encourages people to be truthful and honest. I've never cleaned my account history like that, but perhaps I was naive? If Sandstein thinks he has the support to have me community banned, based on my entire wiki-career, then he should have done it properly, and shown that consensus existed first, instead of doing what he just did, and turning up at a stale ANI thread to demand someone give a him a reason not to indef block me, and when unsurprisingly not receiving any contrary response in just 8 hours (and only one support too!), unilaterally banning me. I wasn't even watching that thread anymore, believing it had died out out of lack of interest, the whole thing was over as far as I was concerned in terms of immediate issues, and unsurprisingly, I've been asleep in the 8 hours he waited for feedback on the 'long term' issues, because it was night time here. He clearly dumped the accusation at ANI before going to bed, and then banning me was apparently task no.1 in his breakfast routine this morning. This is not good enough in terms of WP:ADMIN, WP:DR (because Sandstein clearly has a personal issue with me, and is not imposing this ban on me on behalf of the community in any way), or WP:BLOCK - ''"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users."'' I wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting any admin to unilaterally ban someone if simply giving nothing better as justification that it would 'prevent damage' than a vague hand wave to their block log, one or two diffs of recent actions which are not ongoing, and a clear general dislike for their attitude, without ever having even raised so much as an Rfc on it. That ANI thread ironically shows that. ] (]) 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Yes, I've mentioned the timing issue at AN/I. It's a bloody scandal. Just one editor commented in the time between block threat and action. LemonMonday Talk 10:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Category: