User talk:Eightball

Warning

Your conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Marchjuly on Arsenal W.F.C. and harassment of Marchjuly (e.g. 1) is extremely inappropriate. You've already been blocked for similar behavior in the past, so you know what happens next. Please drop the stick. Thanks, FASTILY 23:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: When this is all done and dusted I will not forget to discuss your needlessly threatening behavior with other administrators. There is no reason to block me and yet this is the second time you have threatened to silence me with sanctions. You keep telling me to drop the stick; I would ask you to do the same. Eightball (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've had enough of your nonsense. I've given you the opportunity to stop and reflect on your actions, but you've continued harassing @Explicit over a moot issue. Additionally, your repeated misinterpretation/perversion/wikilawyering of the policies/guidelines that govern this site is troubling, and suggest that you may have a competence issue. That said, you are blocked until you a) decide you are prepared to contribute in a constructive and collegial manner (without harassing others), and b) prove to us that you have read and understand WP:XFD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NFCC, and WP:CIVIL. Thank you, FASTILY 02:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I think your actions are a complete overreaction. Eightball literally made one edit (how is that non-stop??) to any of the relevant talk pages since your warning and there was no threatening or uncivil language in it at all. All we are trying to do is explain and address our concerns with some people's actions in these situations.T v x1 11:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

User:Fastily]] has blocked me for absolutely no reason whatsoever solely because I continue to question his decision making process in refusing to let me correct an obviously incorrect image. He has repeatedly threatened me with unnecessary sanctions from the beginning of this dispute and has finally followed through. User:Explicit, another administrator, has also personally attacked me and accused me of trying to "unilaterally overturn consensus" when I am - again - simply trying to correct a mistake. Both of these administrators demanded I submit an FFD in order to change the image in question, but neither of them had any further interest in productively participating in that FFD beyond continuing to threaten and attack me. This behavior is completely unacceptable, in my opinion. @Tvx1: You have seen this administrator's behavior firsthand, please chime in if you're willing. Eightball (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The edit warring over the image (instead of bringing it to DRV or FFD as you were advised) and conduct on ANI and elsewhere are not the correct behavior, and caused a simple disagreement to grow into a major dispute. As Fastily says below, I would be on board with shortening or lifting this block if you are willing to acknowledge the reasons for the block, and agree to avoid future edit warring or abuse over non-free images (or, in fact, in any topic area). Unfortunately, as long as you deny the basis for the block, I have no reason to believe that the same behavior won't resume as soon as the block is lifted. ST47 (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was pinged, so I'll give my thoughts. All in all, I feel that blocking this user indefinitely is a massive overreaction. I agree that Eightball maybe used a bit of strong language in the WP:AN thread, but at the same time they didn't issue any insult or threat to any of the involved users there. There I could have understood a short (e.g. 12 or 24 hours) block but an indefinite one is just disproportionate and excessive. Even more so since this user made only one more edit with regards to this issue (a rather civil reply at Explicit's talk page which only intended to clarify their concerns). That to me is nowhere near the "Non-stop wikilawyering/harassment of other editors" referred to in the block rationale. Unfortunately it appears that this user has been railroaded for having the audacity to post another reply on the talk page of administrator Explicit. Note that I myself have received such an aggressive warning from the administrator who issued this block, even though I did not do anything uncivil, threatening or insulting to anyone anywhere. Therefore I hope an uninvolved administrator will take the time carefully review this block.T v x1 15:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request that the reviewing admin please not unblock this user yet, as I believe they intend to repeat the same battleground behavior that led me to block them in the first place. I'll gladly advocate for an unblock provided that Eightball has demonstrated that they understand the reasons for this block and agrees to the unblock conditions stated above: a) decide you are prepared to contribute in a constructive and collegial manner (without harassing others), and b) prove to us that you have read and understand WP:XFD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NFCC, and WP:CIVIL. Best, FASTILY 00:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued attacks and condescending tone are completely unnecessary. Eightball (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you that casting aspersions are also not tolerated on Wikipedia, so it's in your best interests to refrain from a) continuing to misrepresent the situation and b) making more baseless accusations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence after all. Regards, FASTILY 01:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am raising this dispute to the arbitration committee. Eightball (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. For the record, I'm literally trying to help you, but you're not even willing to help yourself. That's a real shame. Best, FASTILY 01:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: 1. Bringing the image to DRV or FFD is NOT required, and I challenge you to provide a policy that says otherwise. As User:Tvx1 has pointed out numerous times (fun fact: he's also been indefinitely banned by Fastily, solely for speaking up in my defense), consensus can be overturned simply by editing, especially when new evidence is provided. That was the case here, and I provided said evidence. The reason this disagreement grew into a dispute has nothing to do with me and everything to do with User:Marchjuly refusing to consider that evidence and instead repeatedly reverting my edits. Were it not for that editor we would not be having that discussion. Furthermore - I DID eventually bring the image to FFD, and the editors there uninamously agreed with me. Do you know who didn't show up in the FFD? Both Fastily and Marchjuly. Odd. 2. I would sincerely request that you explain what I did wrong in the ANI as I am completely baffled as to what was the problem there. 3. This is a clear and obvious abuse of power by User:Fastily and I will be escalating the issue to the arbitration committee. As I stated before, he has also blocked User:Tvx1 for absolutely no reason. Eightball (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: To be clear, I'm specifically looking for a response from yourself or another uninvolved admin, not Fastily. Eightball (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably be my last reply here, because I'm very tired of repeating myself. For your sake, I hope you will take this feedback seriously, because you are actively digging yourself into a hole you soon won't be able to crawl out of.

1. Bringing the image to DRV or FFD is NOT required, and I challenge you to provide a policy that says otherwise.

It absolutely is; this has been explained to you on multiple occasions by different editors here, here, and here.

As User:Tvx1 has pointed out numerous times (fun fact: he's also been indefinitely banned by Fastily, solely for speaking up in my defense), consensus can be overturned simply by editing, especially when new evidence is provided. That was the case here, and I provided said evidence.

Nope, not the reason.

The reason this disagreement grew into a dispute has nothing to do with me and everything to do with User:Marchjuly refusing to consider that evidence and instead repeatedly reverting my edits. Were it not for that editor we would not be having that discussion. Furthermore - I DID eventually bring the image to FFD, and the editors there uninamously agreed with me. Do you know who didn't show up in the FFD? Both Fastily and Marchjuly. Odd.

Please refer to WP:NOTTHEM

2. I would sincerely request that you explain what I did wrong in the ANI as I am completely baffled as to what was the problem there.

See above.

3. This is a clear and obvious abuse of power by User:Fastily and I will be escalating the issue to the arbitration committee. As I stated before, he has also blocked User:Tvx1 for absolutely no reason.

Please refer to WP:NOTTHEM, WP:ASPERSIONS

-FASTILY 01:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is; this has been explained to you on multiple occasions by different editors here, here, and here.

Link the relevant policy here, right now. Prove me wrong. Eightball (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]