User talk:TaerkastUA/Archives/2017/January

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TaerkastUA. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Edit warring report

As promised here, I have now reported you for edit warring. Number 5 7 15:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Taiwanese cross-Strait relations referendum, 2004

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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).

TaerkastUA/Archives/2017 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

For being reported a couple of days ago, and willingly recusing myself from editing the page? It seems rather unjust. Additionally, I wasn't the only guilty party, but the reporting user engaged in it as well, but I don't suppose that matters does it? Second of all, I wasn't trying to change the page titles, I am well aware of the moves at the pages, and as I've attempted to explain, I was merely introducing both the long titles, and then using the common names thereafter. they were linked accordingly, and it seems to matter little that I was attempting to compromise. I have never been blocked before and I believe a warning would have sufficed, for the one instance of being taken too far (and being half of the blamed parties) seems to be excessive. I do not believe the full facts surrounding the circumstances was regarded before I was blocked.--Tærkast (Discuss) 15:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were edit warring at that article for nearly two weeks, and offering to recuse yourself for 24 hours is nowhere near sufficient. No matter whether you are right or wrong about it, you need to permanently abandon edit warring as a means to settling content disagreements. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

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).

TaerkastUA/Archives/2017 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am well aware of the fact that I was edit warring, and of course it was wrong, but it seems that my attempts to compromise are not being taken into consideration at all, while the other party to the dispute has walked away without so much as a warning. I see the wrong in what I have done, but this is a first instance of it happening, and I would not engage in such unnecessary behaviour again. But it seems to me that what the other editor has done has been overlooked, and again, as have been my attempts to compromise. I highly doubt this will lift my block, but I am not going to sit around being wholly blamed (which is what this block feels to me given that nothing has happened to the other editor) when it is clearly a two person job. Tærkast (Discuss) 16:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Nothing to do here; the block seems to have expired. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

Edit warring at Taiwanese cross-Strait relations referendum, 2004

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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).

TaerkastUA/Archives/2017 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

For being reported a couple of days ago, and willingly recusing myself from editing the page? It seems rather unjust. Additionally, I wasn't the only guilty party, but the reporting user engaged in it as well, but I don't suppose that matters does it? Second of all, I wasn't trying to change the page titles, I am well aware of the moves at the pages, and as I've attempted to explain, I was merely introducing both the long titles, and then using the common names thereafter. they were linked accordingly, and it seems to matter little that I was attempting to compromise. I have never been blocked before and I believe a warning would have sufficed, for the one instance of being taken too far (and being half of the blamed parties) seems to be excessive. I do not believe the full facts surrounding the circumstances was regarded before I was blocked.--Tærkast (Discuss) 15:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were edit warring at that article for nearly two weeks, and offering to recuse yourself for 24 hours is nowhere near sufficient. No matter whether you are right or wrong about it, you need to permanently abandon edit warring as a means to settling content disagreements. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

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).

TaerkastUA/Archives/2017 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am well aware of the fact that I was edit warring, and of course it was wrong, but it seems that my attempts to compromise are not being taken into consideration at all, while the other party to the dispute has walked away without so much as a warning. I see the wrong in what I have done, but this is a first instance of it happening, and I would not engage in such unnecessary behaviour again. But it seems to me that what the other editor has done has been overlooked, and again, as have been my attempts to compromise. I highly doubt this will lift my block, but I am not going to sit around being wholly blamed (which is what this block feels to me given that nothing has happened to the other editor) when it is clearly a two person job. Tærkast (Discuss) 16:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Nothing to do here; the block seems to have expired. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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.