| Revision as of 20:57, 31 August 2009 edit65.246.126.130 (talk) →August 2009← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:05, 31 August 2009 edit undoShereth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,865 edits →August 2009: responseNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| ::::::I see the first 3 alone violate 3RR; which was not my intention as I was making many edits in several articles, at once. Getting worried about that led me to stop and call for help ("Here" above.) Per "guide to appealing blocks", I request "duration of the block ... be reduced" and Admin review of other editors' uses of "vandal" which weren't penalized (I documented my edits, that they questioned, with relevant links to similar uses, and they did not document their reversions). By such documentation (and intending to avoid 3RR), I "desire to work things out" but they (one in particular) did not, simply reverting my edits as "vandalism" (Why OK for him?). I "intend to stop editing the article in question (w.r.t. to the use of, what I contend is the now, more general meaning of ]) until after disputes are resolved." -] (]) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | ::::::I see the first 3 alone violate 3RR; which was not my intention as I was making many edits in several articles, at once. Getting worried about that led me to stop and call for help ("Here" above.) Per "guide to appealing blocks", I request "duration of the block ... be reduced" and Admin review of other editors' uses of "vandal" which weren't penalized (I documented my edits, that they questioned, with relevant links to similar uses, and they did not document their reversions). By such documentation (and intending to avoid 3RR), I "desire to work things out" but they (one in particular) did not, simply reverting my edits as "vandalism" (Why OK for him?). I "intend to stop editing the article in question (w.r.t. to the use of, what I contend is the now, more general meaning of ]) until after disputes are resolved." -] (]) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::You used the revert feature more than 8 times in 24 hours, a gross violation of 3RR. You did so with multiple IP addresses, a violation of ] - this account has been blocked multiple times in the past for violating this policy alone. In the above revert-spree you managed to accuse 3 different established editors of vandalism/being vandals (going so far as to report one of them for vandalism), managed to otherwise insult them, and have otherwise demonstrated extremely disruptive editing behavior. I for one have no interest in modifying your block, you may try requesting an unblock agian with the {{tl|unblock}} template otherwise. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 21:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:05, 31 August 2009
 Welcome!Last edited:Last edited by:21:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Shereth (talk · contribs) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages? Create an account! Your IP address, To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.  Network administrators or other parties wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. |
 | Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history. |
3RR warning
Please be aware of the WP:3RR policy. You will be blocked if you continue to revert against consensus. OhNoitsJamie 22:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's news to me that "edits against consensus" are covered. (I was about to protest on that basis.) -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are dangerously close to running afoul of 3RR, yet again. I strongly advise you to stop. Shereth 18:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's not my intention to revert a consensus (as I see, now, that is against 3RR) but to help build a new one. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
August 2009
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit you made to the page Health care reform debate in the United States has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoyadds 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Corrected (moving too fast) -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. "Teabagger" is being used as a pejorative, and as such violates WP:NPOV. Do not attempt to include it again. Both that page and its companion page ahve been nominated for semi-protection against editing, which precludes edits by anonymous users.Alan (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Alan (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's not pejorative since used self-referentially. It's just like "yankee" in perhaps originally being intended that way but so widely used as to ignore, and lose in its wide usage, any of that. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Shereth 17:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
65.246.126.130 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I stopped before invoking the 3RR.
Decline reason:
Clear evidence of edit warring, including 5 uses of the revert or undo function between 16:35 and 17:40 today; as well as the disruptive mischaractarization of the good-faith edits of other users as "vandalism", calling other editors "vandal" in edit summaries does not indicate a desire to work things out on talk pages. No indication that you intend to stop editing the article in question until after disputes are resolved on the talk page, so I see no reason to unblock you. Jayron32 18:52, 31 August 2009 (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.
- To the reviewing administrator, please see identical reversions by User:63.99.12.25 and User:74.162.150.109, which all resolve to the same geographical location and are very evidently the same person. This problem extends beyond 3RR to general tendentious editing and harrassing of other editors, accusing them of vandalism for reverting his edits, and so on. These multiple IPs are being used to evade policies, and the block log indicates that this is not the first time. Shereth 17:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- To the reviewing administrator, please note that I have access to only one PC at a time and make conscious efforts not to go against the 3RR, now including going against a clear consensus (which I did not know before). Here is an example where I stopped today, for that reason, to try to involve Admins in reviewing disruptive edits on US healthcare-related pages. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally, reviewing the history of this talk page and of the contributions of this IP address, it seems clear that it is being operated by the same person as the User:Mbhiii account. --Jayron32 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- ...but not to go against the 3RR, or any other policy, see "Here" above. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am curious as to how you believe , , , , , , and , all within 24 hours, do not violate 3RR or any of the other policies mentioned in your block notice? Shereth 20:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see the first 3 alone violate 3RR; which was not my intention as I was making many edits in several articles, at once. Getting worried about that led me to stop and call for help ("Here" above.) Per "guide to appealing blocks", I request "duration of the block ... be reduced" and Admin review of other editors' uses of "vandal" which weren't penalized (I documented my edits, that they questioned, with relevant links to similar uses, and they did not document their reversions). By such documentation (and intending to avoid 3RR), I "desire to work things out" but they (one in particular) did not, simply reverting my edits as "vandalism" (Why OK for him?). I "intend to stop editing the article in question (w.r.t. to the use of, what I contend is the now, more general meaning of teabagger) until after disputes are resolved." -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- You used the revert feature more than 8 times in 24 hours, a gross violation of 3RR. You did so with multiple IP addresses, a violation of WP:SOCK - this account has been blocked multiple times in the past for violating this policy alone. In the above revert-spree you managed to accuse 3 different established editors of vandalism/being vandals (going so far as to report one of them for vandalism), managed to otherwise insult them, and have otherwise demonstrated extremely disruptive editing behavior. I for one have no interest in modifying your block, you may try requesting an unblock agian with the {{unblock}} template otherwise. Shereth 21:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)