User:AussieLegend/Block

You have been blocked for 24 hours from editing for edit warring, as you did at Newcastle High School (Australia). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

As was indicated by another administrator, I acknowledged at ANI, in a discussion that I started after stepping back, that I had been sucked into a trivial edit war and sought opinions there on my actions. I have made over 38,000 edits to Wikipedia and have NEVER been blocked before. I believe I have demonstrated that I am a responsible editor and I do not think this block is justified in the circumstances. As C.Fred stated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. "Since blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive, I don't think any action is necessary unless he commits any further violations of 3RR after that point."[3] This block seems punitive rather than preventative and has tarnished what I thought was an extremely good record. More importantly, I believe the project will suffer, albeit in a very small way, as I spend most of my time reverting vandalism, the addition of uncited original research, repairing misguided edits etc on articles that need constant watching by an adult. This block seems unconstructive at best. AussieLegend (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC) | decline=You were clearly edit-warring about an edit that was clearly not vandalism. Since you were the last editor to have reverted, any claims by you that you would have stopped edit-warring carry little weight, because the article was in your preferred state at the time you started the ANI thread. If you had really wanted to withdraw from the edit war, you should have reverted yourself first and left the article in the state preferred by the other editor. The benefit to the project of preventing and deterring you from continued edit warring outweighs the benefits of your other edits.  Sandstein  21:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Given my previously unblemished record here, I would ask Sandstein to assume good faith as to what I would or would not have done. In fact I opened a discussion at WP:ANI#Would appreciate some feedback in which I acknowledged what had happened and asked for opinions as to whether or not what I had done was appropriate. Had I not been immediately sidetracked at length by the WP:AN3 discussion, I might have been able to revert, even though that would have compromised the integrity of the article. Sandstein should take special note of the acknowledgement that I made at the ANI discussion eight hours ago.[14] This is not something that I'm making up now. There is also certainly no evidence that edit-warring would have continued as neither Danjel or I edited the article at all for nearly 3 hours after the last edit. The claim that "the benefit to the project of preventing and deterring you from continued edit warring outweighs the benefits of your other edits" does not hold water. In the time since I was blocked I've identified at least 18 issues in other articles that needed fixing. I'd much rather be fixing those than arguing over commas. AussieLegend (talk) 4:06 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6) | accept=Good-faith editor had acknowledged the mistake of getting involved in the edit war before being blocked, so with AGF toward both the blocked user and the blocking admin, I don't think this block is necessary to prevent damage to the project. As seen below, it is actually preventing improvements to the project. —DoRD (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree that this was a bad block for the reasons above. I've left a comment on the admin's talk page asking for an explanation. Swarm ^X 17:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I must admit to being more than a little disappointed with his response, especially as I explained why I thought Danjel's comments were vandalism. What do you call it when somebody deliberately removes citations from an article without explanation, twice? I'm especially confused at "I wasn't actually aware of it when I closed the report on AN/3",[1] given that it was mentioned several times in the AN/3 report.[2][3][4][5][6] --AussieLegend (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, considering that you're a very long-term editor in good standing, I would have seriously expected Sandstein to assume that you made a good faith effort to stop edit warring on your part. I don't feel you've given any reason to assume bad faith (that you will go back to edit warring). And yes, it would appear that the blocking admin simply didn't read the AN3 discussion that was going on. Poor show on their part. Over four years time and 38,000 edits, and you get blocked for edit warring after the fact. Unbelievable. Swarm ^X 22:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked Deacon of Pndapetzim via email whether he had read the discussion and the relevant part of his response was "When I blocked you I only really looked at the evidence and skimmed the long discussion. After I blocked you I saw the AN/I thread," so it appears he skimmed the evidence as well, since the ANI discussion was mentioned in that. --22:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The response since your block has been unfortunate. I want you to know that I appreciate your continuing to benefit the project during this block. MarnetteD | Talk 23:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I appreciate the support although you should probably rethink it since I'm such a bad, evil bastard who's going to bring down Wikipedia with his horrible edits. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hah. It is a privilege to welcome you to the club. Seriously though thanks for all you do and this block will soon be over and you can return to happy editing - the one or two times a day when that can occur :-) Cheers of the holiday season to you. MarnetteD | Talk 23:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's good thing our noble admin corps stepped in to puni- ...prevent you from disrupting the encyclopedia further. Just like you tried to do in the three hours between the edit war in your block. At least they've given you some time to cool down. </sarcasm> *sigh* Swarm ^X 23:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is an unjust block, User:Danjel was being disruptive with his view of his version or the highway (seeking a one sided consensus) however it was up to Danjel to gain a consensus. I see nothing wrong with AussieLegend edits which was restoring a cited source which was removed without any valid reason in the edit summary and fixing a figure which clearly should have a comma (there was no reason to remove it). Bidgee (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nice to see they rescinded the block..."for the record", if nothing else. Regards, Swarm ^X 10:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. I haven't been on Wiki for a few days and come back to this - Aussie and I have had our share of random run-ins over the years but no matter how rabidly we've disagreed on the topic at hand, he has never acted in a blockworthy manner, and has always worked to benefit the project (not to mention the fact he does a lot of janitorial tasks that many users take for granted, as seen below). I'm glad this was ultimately attended to in a sensible (if delayed) manner. Orderinchaos 03:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To the people watching this spot, thank you for your efforts in fixing the bad edits that I couldn't but I figure if administrators can't find the time to review my unblock request, then I'm not going to spend any time looking for bad edits, ever again. If people want to vandalise Wikipedia, let them, I'm not going to be part of the solution any more. I don't see why I should waste my time when there are those who can't even do what they should be doing, like reviewing unblock requests. It's not as if Category:Requests for unblock is really backlogged. As of now there are only 11 pages and some of them have been there for days. I wish you well in your efforts but, as my experience shows, you probably shouldn't even bother. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• [7] - incorrect reversion at The Big Bang Theory. Ben Ben was actually correct in reverting this. She was only trying to get work as a bartender and had convinced The Cheesecake Factory to give her a single shift. In the episode she had to practice mixing drinks. Her normal employment is as a waitress. This was discussed at Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 4)#Kaley Cuoco's broken leg

 Reverted by dosbears

• [8] - IP refactoring comments made by others at Talk:Hannah Montana

 Reverted--Terrillja _talk 17:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• [9] - Uncited comment added to Pelaw Main, New South Wales

 Reverted--Terrillja _talk 17:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for those Terrillja. At least somebody is watching. I guess the admins must all be busy. --17:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• [10] - Unnecessary at Two and a Half Men. Not even sure what it's supposed to mean.

 Reverted Thanks for staying vigilant in spite of a questionable block. MarnetteD | Talk 18:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• And thanks to MarnetteD for the kind comment, although I note that edit doesn't seem to have been reverted. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well that was weird. I think I may have hit the show preview button and then used the backup feature on the menu to leave my message here. In any event it has been reverted now. MarnetteD | Talk 18:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's happened to me before plenty of times. I blame my keyboard. It should know its way round by now. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• [11] - Vandalism at Bailey Pickett
• [12] - Vandalism at London Tipton by the same IP who vandalised Bailey Pickett
• [13] - incomplete repair of vandalism by the IP again at Where Do I Belong?
• [14] - Unnecessary at List of The Big Bang Theory characters. Actress is credited by the same name as her article. "Ivy" is uncited. Wikilinking "last name" is not required.
• [15] - Vandalism at Marcus Little by the same IP again

 Reverted All by MarnetteD - GoodExcellent work. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

and away go the bad edits. Always wanted to use this but hadn't had a chance until now. Thanks for the complement in your edit summary but I wouldn't want the aggravation. I'm logging off pretty soon but I will check here when I get back. Hopefully others will continue to help too. MarnetteD | Talk 18:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, and thanks for all you've done. It's probably a good idea that you're logging off. Soon the real fun begins. They come out in force to vandalise, add fancruft, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH and flat out WP:OR --AussieLegend (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• [16] - Rubbish at List of Wizards of Waverly Place characters
• [17] - Table damage at Whale Wars noticed after most recent edit.
• [18] - Vandalism getting worse at List of Hannah Montana episodes
• [19] - Speculative content at The Suite Life on Deck
• [20] - Citation damage, unexplained removal of content, test edits at Australia
• [21] - Spelling at Wizards of Waverly Place (season 3)
• [22] - Same spelling issues at Wizards of Waverly Place (season 2)

 Reverted The IP hopper from Florida is a pain. The change to Whale Wars turns out to have been okay and I was laid into for some reason. Don't worry about it though as that is just the way that things go. MarnetteD | Talk 23:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)