User talk:Sheodred: Difference between revisions

Howdy, you're a bit behind. My change was made & was self-reverted, all on November 18. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And, I might add (to Sheodred), you may want to read WP:DTTR. Unless you were trying to make some sort of point. In that case, read WP:POINT. freshacconci talktalk 16:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no problem sorry about that. Sheodred (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you have an ANI, a now-closed 3RR report ... you've been chastised for not following policy on proper escalation, and calls for WP:BOOMERANG. Can you take a step back, breathe deeply, and recognize that although you feel you're doing the right thing, you're actually causing more disruption than the other user? Step back - breathe - focus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, Sheodred get in touch if you get frustrated and I'll help. All that happens if you fire up like this is that people get into a "plague on both your houses" mood. The community will eventually deal with disruptive editors, particularly those who try and make up policy. However they need to be given time and space and if you are one of the protagonists, stand back. --Snowded ^TALK 20:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I apologise, I should have followed policy but the red mist decended, I will take a little break, just to calm down. Sheodred (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Irish is not a nationality and then you re-edited it to have the article infobox then say he was British and that his nationality was the Kingdom of Great Britain, why did you do that, that was not in the infobox before I intervened. Sheodred (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have blocked you as I was involved in the content dispute. My apologies. I have opened a new section on the Shackleton talk page to discuss WP:IMOS and would be glad if you could explain your views there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Sheodred (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked by an admin/editor who was involved in the same article I was editing,I only was making the edits under the guidelines of IMOS, which were being ignored for the most part. The blocking admin also reverted edits a number of times on the article involved, and I think it is highly inappropiate that he was the one that blocked me. I defended myself here, a week I feel is also a bit harsh. Sheodred (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

It looks like Ruhrfisch has already unblocked you, when he recognized that he was involved. Are you still unable to edit? I tried to find an autoblock, but the interface seemed to indicate that it wasn't active when I tried to unblock it. Syrthiss (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can edit now again, thanks. Sheodred (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have been blocked by Ruhrfisch, but please refrain from continuing to edit war, there are other, uninvolved admins aware of this now, and you may find yourself reblocked if you carry on--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Sheodred (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And bear in mind, what you're arguing over is in the grand scheme of things, a very very small thing, if you find yourself getting stressed about it, why not just forget about it, go edit something less troublesome--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but its like talking to a wall sometimes with these people. It is stressful sometimes, I was only trying to follow the IMOS, I was not pushing any POV. Sheodred (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They probably think exactly the same thing about you. What you have to remember is that they believe they are doing the right thing just as you do, we're all here because we're trying to make this crazy idea of an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit a little bit better. But just think about this, all this drama is coming from a difference of one word. 10 years from now will this matter in the slightest? Or 5? Or even a year from now? Sometimes its better just to take a step back and find something else to do--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sheodred. I've been reviewing WP:AN3#User:Sheodred reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: ) which still needs to be closed by an admin. It is regrettable that an involved admin blocked you, although they then corrected their mistake. Meanwhile, I'm afraid that your actions would normally qualify for a block, since it represents long-term warring about the use of 'Anglo-Irish' to refer to Shackleton. (On the merits I think you may be correct, but that's not my call. The advice of WP:IMOS is not an exception to 3RR). If you will promise to cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles for one month, I'd be willing to close the 3RR case with no action. You can still make recommendations on talk pages. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of self imposed restriction would hold a bit more weight if the same was asked of Ruhrfisch an admin who abused his tools using Rollback in a content dispute, reverted 3 times in 3 hours, protected the page on their preferred version and blocked the editor they were edit warring with. Are these abuse of tools just going to be ignored? Mo ainm~Talk 21:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's serious enough, there's a place for it ... especially considering they rightly unblocked the editor because of their error (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where ANI? Mo ainm~Talk 21:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will accept what you said regarding the one month self-restriction, but this whole issue with the incorrect usage of Anglo-Irish, and admins abusing their tools to push their POV must be dealt with, it is a serious breach of protocol, and has diminished the standing of admins in the eyes of observers. Sheodred (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Per my closure of the AN3 report your restriction is now in effect, and will expire at 22:56 on 1 January 2012. You can still participate on talk pages on this subject. It is traditional that even voluntary restrictions (like this one) can be enforced by blocks. If you are ever uncertain about the scope of the restriction, it is best to ask. There are places where the Anglo-Irish issue could be discussed further, and you are free to participate on such pages if you want to. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ed, very much appreciated. Sheodred (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst i don't know if i can agree to your slightly emotive edit summary, good call none the less, never actually noticed how out of place it was when i wikilinked it. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, no problem, you might say it was slightly emotive, maybe the use of Northern Ireland in the article was not intentionally POV, I will assume good faith.Sheodred (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note - i never added it in, it was already there when i wikilinked it. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I never accused you. Sheodred (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't, though the edit-summary and the assuming good faith comment kind of made me wonder did you think it was me lol :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 16:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sheodred. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Per WP:BRD, would you please discuss your edit to Mary Shelley on the article's talk page? Your original post was that "According to Wikipedia are not the bios of people born in the United Kingdom be referred to by their home countries?" but I cannot find this in the WP:MOS anywhere and would appreciate a more specific quotation of the MOS or policy / guideline in question. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about MOS, and I made a grammatical mistake when typing, which I corrected when I noticed. You are the admin, you tell me about MOS,, all I know is that bios of the United Kingdom are referred to their home coutries, such as Sean Connery, Arthur Conan Doyle, Beatrix Potter, John Lennon, Tom Jones, Dylan Thomas......the list goes on, it also backed up by a reliable source.Sheodred (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, ArbCom are next after AN. They are the highest Wiki authority. If AN doesn't get responses, ArbCom certainly will. They've already blocked Irish agendas in the past, as well as banning mulitple editors with agendas. So they know what they'll be dealing with when I throw your huge list of disruptive edits at them. Either way, don't think no admin response means I don't have other avenues to report you via. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have not considered that they will take into account the editor and his interactions (does not look very good for you) who made the report do you, don't be surprised if it backfires. Stay off my page please. Sheodred (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take the baiting Sheodred, that's the problem with British POV pushers they have a lot of friends and usually drown out any attempts at neutrality, with weight of numbers, take a day or two off and just ignore the fools who are on this site. Mo ainm~Talk 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mo Ainm, I decided to start doing that, I unwatched the page, it is best to let them shoot themselves in the feet whilst I ignore them. Sheodred (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Say nothing until you hear more" - an old saying, useful in this situation. Best of luck. Slainte. 58.7.197.112 (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ta tu cheart ansin! Sheodred (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Na habair e. 58.7.197.112 (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure that you are aware of the provisions of the WP:TROUBLES case I'm leaving the official notice for you. Noticing that you've engaged in a good-faith discussion at WT:IMOS reduces my concern. For the record, there was a 3RR case concerning your edits at Ernest Shackleton and the link is here. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to The Troubles. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]