User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Note: please do not use talkback {{tb}} templates here unless you are referring to discussion areas that I have not yet been a part of; I do monitor my conversations

This is EatsShootsAndLeaves's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

ANI discussion closure

While I agree that your closure of the IHTS IBAN enforcement request discussion summarised the position well as far as the discussion was so far, I would've preferred if it were open for just a few hours longer to have expressed a further comment as I have here, which may have warranted that the block be lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but it was a) becoming a dramafest, b) he should have been blocked last time not this time, so the lifting part was moot, and c) I can't say I'm overly convinced that he was unaware - I think by the time that was discussed and proven, the block would be long-over the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the last part, I think it is still worth recording the issue in the discussion itself where the sanction was imposed from. On another point, it's clear that the action elected to be taken was a warning - yet if the warning was probably (but unintentionally) not conveyed properly, I don't see how it makes it moot. The issue isn't what sanction should have been imposed last time (although I personally think the warning was more appropriate rather than a block); the issue is the chosen sanction was not enforced completely to begin with when that discussion was closed, so the underlying basis for the follow up enforcement is a bit of an issue. On the dramafest issue, that is in a lot of ways the nature of many noticeboard threads, but a few more hours was unlikely to have escalated further given that the editor was already blocked and there was more light left to give than heat.

Of course, for the reasons I already stated there, I'm not terribly convinced that an enforced wikibreak is such a bad thing - more so if it were dished out to both. But my concern is that it seems to have been the opposite of a wikibreak for the sanctioned user, and there is a strong risk that it will drag more good users into the vortex because things were possibly being dealt with too hastily. I'm not particularly impressed with either user's approach, but even if things stay as they are, I suppose I don't lose anything from it personally so I don't need to bother really. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 block

Hey, DP. I've been looking at your block of Flyer22, and I find myself agreeing with NeilN about it. I don't know about your history or whether you're involved or not; I'm not sure the situation requires you to have been involved to explain the call you made. I could see you doing it simply to be even-handed between the two edit-warring editors. But I think NeilN makes a good case that the two are not equal. Certainly, neither broke 3RR, though of course that's not decisive. But the thing here is that, after their warning, Flyer didn't continue edit warring, and in fact was discussing it on the talk page, whereas Mdthree continued edit-warring after warning Flyer (relying on the fact that they themselves hadn't been warned as a sort of "extra life", one might say). Mdthrees's gaming of the rules can be considered worthy of a block without Flyer's lack thereof being worthy of the same, and I don't think that reverting twice, then stopping after having been warned, is worthy of a block. Not optimal, sure, but not at all block-worthy. Would you consider reversing it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to further explain my concerns. As far as I can see, this was the sequence of events for Flyer: Revert, Revert, Warned by other editor, Blocked by you. There were two reverts and none after the warning. This block is essentially saying you will impose WP:1RR as you see fit. Present this view to a group of experienced editors, ask them to look over their edit history, and see what kind of reaction you get. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Neil, you lost me at the "saying you will impose WP:1RR as you see fit". You're welcome to come here and discuss if you're going to have a little bit of WP:AGF, but that's a grossly negligent and offensive statement. the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Is "gives the appearance you will impose WP:1RR as you see fit" better? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - you continue to put things into my head and actions that are wholly unrelated to the situation - indeed, your comments on Flyer's page were atrocious and incendiary. On that topic, you are, of course, aware that edit-warring can take place over a single edit, right? I did not place any block for 1RR or 3RR violations (I'd be quite specific about those), I placed 2 simple 12-hr blocks to stop issues on an article that has had more than its share of issues (and more than its share of blocks) the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wouldn't say what NeilN said here (it's far too sweeping and generalized), but the point is that the issues were already stopped, at least from Flyer's end: they had stopped after receiving a warning and had started to use the talk page. Surely that's not block-worthy? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well let me review again - the times I saw certainly didn't show the above. the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've compiled a list of the diffs in time order here: User:Writ Keeper/FM-Interleaved edit history, if that helps. Some minor and/or unrelated edits excised, but that should be everything that's relevant. Also, I sent you an email a little while ago; did you see it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed your diff's listed there, I can state without a doubt that the alignment is very different from what I reviewed this morning. After all, it takes serious situations to cause me to login to admin account from work. I am going to doublecheck on my own compared to your datestamps on that list, and will be back the panda ₯’ 19:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to leave an extensive discussion of my significant analysis that led to the blocks on WP:AN the panda ₯’ 20:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've unblocked Flyer based on the above note. You may want to view my note on ANI for my reasoning, but TLDR let's not block people when without reviewing all of the facts, eh? Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WTF User:The ed17, I never said any such thing - and the analysis I posted on AN runs 180 degrees from your statement. I did extensively review all of the facts, and I never stated that I had not done so the panda ₯’ 20:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Writ Keeper yes, I read your e-mail, please read my reply very carefully the panda ₯’ 20:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting review of EatsShootsAndLeaves block of Flyer22. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fucking kidding me Neil? You barely started discussing above, and now you take to ANI? Holy AGF, batman! the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't seem too interested in my point of view. So, you can get other point of views from your peers at AN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was very interested in your point of view - you just needed to start with AGF'ing a bit more first. You've already been told above that your words were inmappropriate by someone besides me. You catch more bees with honey, and all that. the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not telling you like it is, I'm telling you how it appears. Look, I'll make this personal. Most of my edits involve recent changes - a lot of reverts. Some outright vandalism, but a lot having to do with making sure content added by new editors meets our guidelines. I always respect WP:3RR but if an admin can suddenly swoop down and block me for edit-warring after I've reverted unsourced content or "Kim Yuna was robbed of the gold medal!" (with appropriate sources) twice, holy hell, I'll just let someone else fix the article when they happen across it. Editors know in theory they can be blocked for one revert but they also know that won't (or shouldn't) happen on an unrestricted article. There needs to be some consistency. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, your phrasing above was an inexcusable attack - as is the phrasing of your AN. You either don't understand WP:EW (which is common) or you had an ethical requirement to continue your discussion above but in a polite manner. Coming here and attacking - indeed your attacks at Flyers page which are quite obviously based on your misunderstanding of EW - is not a way to get anything accomplished the panda ₯’ 19:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sorry, sorry!

Heartfelt apologies for the accidental revert at ANI - I've just discovered that having my "inspect diff" button right next to my "rollback" button might not be the most well-organised bit of watchlist design... NeilN has helpfully put your comment back. Yunshui ^雲くも _水みず 14:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have an issue with it. The thread should be put to its natural death - after all, the original filer is simply now randomly adding things on. the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David's Tea

My only involvement with this was to carry out the formality of deleting after a 8/0 AfD for notability back in 2009. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that, but wanted to advise you that I had recreated somthing you deleted, not knowing it had been previously deleted :-) Thanks for the reply the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi I removed the case because I want to withdraw the complaint.Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once you've filed at AN/3RR, it's way to late to withdraw - and if someone has actually commented on it, it's even more too late the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Language

check how Darkness shines is using bad language in revision history[1] 15:11, 20 May 2014‎ Darkness Shines (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,183 bytes) (-724)‎ . . (Bugger all I can say about it, I be topic banned) (undo)

You support Someone who uses words like bugger--112.79.36.29 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? The word "fuck" gets used across this project almost every minute of the day, and you're complaining about "bugger"? As long as the swear word isn't used to describe another editor (i.e. "fucking asshole" or "cocksucker"), then it doesn't run afoul of any Wikipedia policy the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Bugger and fuck can be used. Is there any list of slang words that can be used by editors.I don't have that much experience. I need to know which foul words can be used as Darkness shines used bugger--112.79.39.94 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]