User talk:ChrisPUT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Let's look at the evidence 2 So now what? 3 The block is moot 4 Warning

[edit] Let's look at the evidence

Ok, forget the fact that you don't believe my story. Let's look at the evidence. On the page in question [[1]] I have exactly one edit.

• 14:53, 14 May 2007 ChrisPUT (Talk | contribs) (5,069 bytes) (Added Headshot.)

On user:Flyguy649's User contrib page he makes an assumption about my identity as he reverts it back.

• 14:56, 14 May 2007 (hist) (diff) John Moyer (revert to user:Flyguy649. grrrr. "the guy" changed the contednt just before I moved it!!!!) ** quotes added by me **

he then goes on to act on his assumption by claiming that I am a sock:

• 14:58, 14 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (→User-reported - add a sock)

He then asserts this assumption as fact:

• 15:00, 14 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→John Moyer - more)

FINALLY! he sends ME a warning:

• 15:01, 14 May 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:ChrisPUT (warn)

He requests page protection (which is fine with me as I would rather not continue trying to tilt against windmills:)

• 15:04, 14 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (→Current requests for protection - add John Moyer semi-protect request)
• 15:07, 14 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→John Moyer - more)

and following this, I was blocked by user:Metros232

• (cur) (last) 15:08, 14 May 2007 Metros232 (Talk | contribs) (2,281 bytes) (blocked)

user:Flyguy649 has gone on to post on user:Metros232's talk page (after I tried to show him the error of his ways in the only way I knew how to) stating: "his logs don't support his side of things." I would love for him to show me where this is true. It appears that Flyguy only added a warning to my page in preparation for a block and had no real interest in actually warning me.

I would just let this go, but it's the principle of the thing. They say I'm lying and I'm not. Btw- what is the purpose of giving a warning if you are just going to block them? Why not just block them? Is it because you have to have given a warning first? --ChrisPUT 06:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So now what?

Is anybody watching this page? I mean Picaroon's insightful (jaded) response included instructions to not add the {{unblock}} to this page again, but the page doesn't seem to be in the unblock request category anymore.
According to the Wikipedia:Blocking policy:

• Blocks are used in order to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.
• Users requesting blocks should supply credible evidence of the circumstances warranting a block.

Also there is a section that seems to apply to me directly: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Education and warnings Which states:

"... before blocking is used, efforts should be made to educate users about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour is in conflict with our policies and guidelines."

"... administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking."

I think it would be reasonable to give someone more than 6 minutes to adjust their behaviour. Has anyone tried "attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them - user:Metros232?
I tried and he told me to put the {{unblock}} on this page which seems to have attracted the most pessimistic admins around. Who ask questions but then don't wait for an answer.

Is it really beyond the stretch of your imagination that I am a new user (who doesn't want a number in my name like half the admins running around) and just don't have that much experience? If so, then I am sad for you. --ChrisPUT 06:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The block is moot

I looked up Vandalism and it appears that my edit doesn't fall under that category. Nor does the repeated edits of the person I have been accused of being a sock puppet for. I think his behaviour could best be described as:

Stubbornness

   Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such.

Back to Blocking:

"The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behaviour. Administrators should consider:

   * the severity of the behaviour;
   * whether the user has been blocked for engaging in that behaviour before.

Well since I am new, we can agree that I have never been blocked before. --ChrisPUT 06:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked as a meatpuppet by coming on to Wikipedia on behalf of Mr. Moyer and fighting his battle for him. If you agree to stay away from engaging in this activity again and recreating the article on Moyer, I see no reason not to unblock. You do seem willing to help Wikipedia, but you just got caught up in not knowing it was wrong to do what you did. Do you agree to stop creating this article? If you would like to use deletion review, you can do that, but do you agree not to continue inserting this article? Metros 22:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I made one edit to a page that I was erroneously told was being changed by someone else. I had no idea until after the fact that it was any different, but either way, I won't insert the article. I may enter any discussion that comes up in AFD regarding it (which it never made it to) but I won't try to add it. (Imagine my hand on a bible, etc.) --ChrisPUT 05:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked you and look forward to you contributing positively to Wikipedia. Thanks, Metros 10:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I assumed you were a puppet based on your contribution right in the middle of a creation war, and that your account appeared immediately after I gave User:Comtheo a level 4 warning for vandalism. I have no problems with your unblocking; Wikipedia needs more valuable contributors, not less. So welcome to Wikipedia! Good luck, and if you need any help, please feel free to ask me as well (although I can also understand if you won't want to). Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your understanding and I applaud your attempt at an amenable resolution, I only wish that my edit had not happened at that particular moment. It looks as if things would have been better all around had you succeeded. Perhaps when things settle down and time has passed, the "John Moyer incident" will no longer be a point of contention amongst various users. (You and I not among them.)

Bridge

Water --ChrisPUT 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Take it easy! Also, I let User:Leuko know that you are allowed to remove warnings on your own page. I is considered to mean that you have read them. Archiving old talk is preferred, but old versions always live on in the page history. Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:ChrisPUT. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Leuko 23:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)