| Revision as of 15:56, 15 November 2010 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:JodyB/Archives/2010/November.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:16, 15 November 2010 edit undoWee Curry Monster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,546 edits →I despair: thank youNext edit → | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
| {{outdent}} I think you have answered your own question - ''"sanctions or warnings on wikipedia are supposed to be preventative."'' I am looking at the entire case but chose to deal with EW first. Your disagreement has been noted. ]<sub>]</sub> 02:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC) | {{outdent}} I think you have answered your own question - ''"sanctions or warnings on wikipedia are supposed to be preventative."'' I am looking at the entire case but chose to deal with EW first. Your disagreement has been noted. ]<sub>]</sub> 02:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm sorry if my persistence is irritating you but really I'm struggling to understand here. Could you perhaps explain why you chose not to deal with the incivility? My issue with that decision is that by not confronting it, further examples of incivility will not be prevented. Its not as if it was a one off it was repeated multiple times on the talk page, then again at ANI. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC) | :I'm sorry if my persistence is irritating you but really I'm struggling to understand here. Could you perhaps explain why you chose not to deal with the incivility? My issue with that decision is that by not confronting it, further examples of incivility will not be prevented. Its not as if it was a one off it was repeated multiple times on the talk page, then again at ANI. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thank you, I feel a lot happier. Regard, '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:16, 15 November 2010
current status: user page // talk pageprojects • policies • interests • templates • external
awards • personal Daphne, Alabama • Spanish Fort High School admin
Hello and welcome!
If you post to my talk page, I will reply exclusively here. If I posted recently to your talk page, I will read responses exclusively there.
Please make sure and sign your message with ~~~~
 | This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) |
The current date and time is 19 January 2025 T 14:21 UTC.
| This is JodyB's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 5 days  |
121.54.32.128/27 rangeblock
Can you be more specific as to why 121.54.32.128/27 has been rangeblocked? You seem to have forgotten to have placed a block rationale for that one, and there are a couple of unblock-en-l inquiries with regards to that range, but we don't know exactly why that range was blocked. I sent you an email a few days ago, but I received no replies. Please respond. –MuZemike 05:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure why I didn't receive the email. It seems to be working as of yesterday. Please see the explanation above this message. JodyB talk 12:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I went ahead and released the block. It was to expire at the end of the month. I looked in unblock-en-l and didn't see a problem showing there so it may have already been handled. Anyway, it's been released. JodyB talk 12:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Screwedupessay.jpg
Can you clarify why an image is a candidate for speedy deletion as an attack page? I'll make my decision as soon as you let me know. JodyB talk 14:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Essay (ese) is a fellow Hispanic. I dentifying the guy in the photo as a screwed up fellow Hispanic by using the photo name Screwedupessay.jpg - seem like an attack on the guy in the photo. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I am not sure that would be a proper use of the attack page designator. Anyway, it has been taken care of by someone else because it is not on my list. JodyB talk 16:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I despair
Really I do, I have been the subject of a sustained personal attack and every edit I make is reverted. I have not edit warred, despite the provocation of my every edit being reverted. I try and use the talk page for discussion. I walk away from a confrontation and an edit war because it was lame and that doesn't matter, you issue me with a warning anyway. What did I actually do wrong? I didn't break 3RR and I walked away - and I clearly stated this was not worth edit warring over.
If I had been that uncivil towards Imalbornoz I'd have been looking at a block. He didn't apologise, he made it worse by dragging up the arbcom case, made further personal attacks and tried to justify them. And he gets away with a warning, I do nothing and you warn me. Come on?
Civility policy specifically states not to bring up past disputes, Richard Keatinge has repeatedly and continuously flung the arbcom case in my face - you do nothing about warning him for his incivility. Every time their behaviour is called into attention, they obscure the discussion with long tracts of text and that dissuades people from reading then nothing much really happens. They fling enough accusations around and it obscures their bad behaviour. Did you warn me just because enough mud stuck?
Just take 5 minutes and have a wander around the Falklands topics, there I'm a respected editor and people come to me for advice and help. I'm often asked for a neutral opinion to settle disputes or to cool tempers. The dispute between Britain and Argentina gets just about as heated as it can get and yet there I can edit without any rancour - so much so that at AN/I an Argentine editor actually spoke in my defence. Justin talk 20:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. My comments on your talk page, and not yours only, were to prevent a problem from growing into a blockable offense. I make no judgment on your value to the larger project but simply remind you that you should use caution when editing a page under sanctions (the page, not you). 3RR is a bright line. The edit waring policy may be invoked anytime someone is editing in such a fashion as to cause disruption. I believe my comments reflect that you were not there yet.
- Civility is another issue. I have made no comment about civility yet but am watching for signs of trouble. I am aware of your concerns and will bear them in mind. Please understand that I am in no hurry to block or sanction anyone. Productive editing is so much easier for everyone. Just be aware of the rules and all will be just fine. JodyB talk 22:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Except there is a problem here. I have a thick skin but I'm fed up of having that arbcom case flung back in my face. I was out of order but I've apologised for it, I haven't repeated the behaviour that lead to me being sanctioned. We have a section in the civility policy that specifically deals with not harping on about the past. Both Richard and Imalbornoz have violated that repeatedly and have got away with it, again and again. Their conduct violates WP:CIVIL and nothing results from it.
- You mention 3RR. Well I didn't cross that bright line. I actually said this is a stupid lame dispute and I'll walk away from it. But Imalbornoz didn't, he still went ahead, edit warred again and followed that up with uncivil comments. At the moment you've treated us equally and I find it difficult to justify that, when one editor walks away from edit warring, the other doesn't and you warn both. Really this just is not equitable treatment. I never once complained about taking my medicine so to speak but I really find this difficult to accept. Its like I'm walking around with a target on my back, saying kick me. Its like anyone can be uncivil to me but even when I don't break the rules I can expect sanctions. Really this is Kafkaesque. Justin talk 22:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- A couple of points and then I will be away for a few hours. First, your connection to the ARBCOM case is not an issue here. The case deals with the page generally and puts no special sanctions on you beyond what you have already served. Second, I issued a warning - no penalties at all. If in fact you have walked away from a "stupid lame dispute" then there will be no problem, right? If I were in your shoes I might feel similarly but do not allow your past sanctions cause you to be overwrought over my message. JodyB talk 22:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well sanctions or warnings on wikipedia are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. Given that I had long since disengaged whilst Imalbornoz peristed, could you explain to me the logic that lead to your warning me? In addition, Richard also persisted with comments of themselves uncivil and he has received no comment. I am utterly mystified why you're not commenting on the incivility. The underlying cause has not been tackled so really I'm at a loss to see how your warnings are preventative? Really I'm bewildered and confused. Justin talk 00:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- A couple of points and then I will be away for a few hours. First, your connection to the ARBCOM case is not an issue here. The case deals with the page generally and puts no special sanctions on you beyond what you have already served. Second, I issued a warning - no penalties at all. If in fact you have walked away from a "stupid lame dispute" then there will be no problem, right? If I were in your shoes I might feel similarly but do not allow your past sanctions cause you to be overwrought over my message. JodyB talk 22:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you have answered your own question - "sanctions or warnings on wikipedia are supposed to be preventative." I am looking at the entire case but chose to deal with EW first. Your disagreement has been noted. JodyB talk 02:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if my persistence is irritating you but really I'm struggling to understand here. Could you perhaps explain why you chose not to deal with the incivility? My issue with that decision is that by not confronting it, further examples of incivility will not be prevented. Its not as if it was a one off it was repeated multiple times on the talk page, then again at ANI. Justin talk 12:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I feel a lot happier. Regard, Justin talk 17:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)