Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:34, 4 May 2017

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

January 2017

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Widr (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User: Widr, I was only reverting the removal of sourced content. Other users have also reverted that user. You can check that in the history of that page. He also violated the 3RR and has reverted other users without giving a valid reason. He also went on wikihounding. Terabar (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you both are edit warring and have been warned now. Widr (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User: Widr Despite your warning he is again removing the sourced content, vandalizing the article and edit warring. Many users have reversed him before. Can you take some action now as he has repeatedly ignored warnings and removed sourced content? Terabar (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Terabar reported by User:Widr (Result: ). Thank you. Widr (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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.  —SpacemanSpiff 09:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request.

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

Request reason:

I was only reverting the removal of sourced content multiple times. At noticeboard it states "Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring;" The only fault that I committed was to revert the vandalism multiple times and was blocked for 3 days. Tender Nuke has been given 48 hours (2 days) block for continuously removing the sourced content and I have been given a 3 day block for reverting his vandalism. Is this fair? I reported TenderNuke earlier two times (1 and 2) but no action was taken. I have only reverted the removal of sourced content and nothing else. You can check the history of that article. Is reverting vandalism a crime on Misplaced Pages? I hope that you will be just towards me and unblock me. With best regards always, Terabar (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Just because something is well-sourced does not mean that it has to stay in an article. This is a clear case of a content dispute, one that you were warned about and then continued reverting. Now, I'm not saying that your addition is inappropriate in the article. But it's also absolutely not a requirement that it be included, and that makes it a content dispute. I suspect SpacemanSpiff let you off with three days this time around because it's been almost a year since your last block, but most admins would have blocked you for a week this time around. Yamla (talk) 12:13, 13 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 is your third edit warring block, it should have been for longer than 72 hours (which was your prior edit warring block) but I just let it pass. I'll also note that you continued edit warring after posting at WP:AN3. —SpacemanSpiff 10:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Terabar, when will you learn to take a break and hold on for a while? Your intentions are good, but you're being led astray by your emotions. Sometimes, you just have to pause, discuss matters, and then take appropriate steps when necessary. Take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User: SpacemanSpiff, thanks for informing me that I could have been blocked for more than 72 hours (3 days). When I was blocked earlier, the two users who reported me were confirmed sock-puppet accounts. You can check that even in block log. See Ekvastra and Capitals. Also, I clearly stated above that the only thing I was doing was to revert the removal of sourced content. Is that my only fault? Is reverting vandalism a crime on Misplaced Pages? I reported TenderNuke earlier two times (1 and 2) but no action was taken. So is it only my fault that I removed vandalism? I hope that you will be just towards me and unblock me. With best regards always, Terabar (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to unblock you and I don't support an unblock either (but that's a reviewing admin's call), you clearly don't understand what vandalism or content dispute are, both of you were edit warring, both of you were blocked, you for a longer duration because you've made edit warring a habit now. —SpacemanSpiff 11:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• I was writing the following as an unblock decline reason, but I was beaten to it. I'll offer it anyway in case it helps:

  While I'm sympathetic to you here, I don't feel I can unblock you because you are showing no understanding of what constitutes a valid exemption from the 3RR rule. Reverting vandalism is a valid exemption, but reverting the removal of sourced content is not. Removing sourced content should not be automatically seen as vandalism - it might be, but it might not.

  Just because something is sourced, that does not automatically mean it is appropriate for an article and must be retained, and we frequently see sourced content removed validly. Of course, removing it without explanation is not acceptable, but again that does not make it vandalism.

  As far as I can tell, this was a content dispute - one editor thought some content should be removed, while you thought it should not. And it should have been addressed by discussion and consensus, and not by edit warring.

  If you make another unblock request with a convincing explanation of your understanding of all this, the reviewing admin might unblock you - but you really do need to show an understanding of what is allowed as a 3RR exemption and what is not, and of what constitutes vandalism and what does not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User: Boing! said Zebedee, thanks for being sympathetic towards me. I am grateful to you for that. I understand that this is a content dispute and not necessarily a vandalism done by another user. I will try to resolve this dispute on article's talk-page and developing a consensus if you allow me to do so. I understand that the dispute should have been resolved through talk page and not through edit warring. So it is requested that you kindly unblock me. With best regards, Terabar (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'd prefer it to go through the proper unblock process. So please make another request using the unblock template, below here, and someone will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

Request reason:

I understand that this is a content dispute and not necessarily a vandalism done by another user. I will try to resolve this dispute on article's talk-page and developing a consensus if you allow me to do so. I understand that the dispute should have been resolved through talk page and not through edit warring. So it is requested that you kindly unblock me. With best regards, Terabar (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

72 hours after so many offences is not excessive in my opinion. The user tenaciously argues, based on flawed understanding of policy, that he is not edit warring when he restores sourced content to an article. All content needs consensus to remain in the article, and is not immune to removal simply by being sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 13 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.

I should note that this is exactly how you got unblocked the first time, sadly, you seem to be treating these as discrete events that aren't connected to each other. Your assurance did not last much longer as you continued to edit war after that, even if not at that article, this behavior has continued elsewhere. It's also no different from what you said last time when Boing! said Zebedee declined the unblock request. While you appear to say what you think people want to hear, it doesn't seem to affect your behavior at all. I also note that EdJohnston alerted you about discretionary sanctions back then, that is applicable even now. —SpacemanSpiff 13:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User: SpacemanSpiff, at that time I even went to the concerned article to resolve the dispute. You can see my edits here. I did what I promised. I even talked about it on my talk page with User: Joshua Jonathan. In today's scenario I was not aware that the removal of sourced content might not be a vandalism. Therefore it is my fault and I accept my fault. Terabar (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Good! Then leave it as it is, try to learn from this, and enjoy your Wiki-break. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry done by Tender Nuke.

User: SpacemanSpiff,

User: Boing! said Zebedee,

User:EdJohnston

User: Yamla,

Now TenderNuke is doing sock-puppetry by editing from a dynamic Ip. See his Sockpuppet edit which he was previously doing from his Id. See ( 1, 2) He is evading the block now. Can you take some action now? Terabar (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved. --Yamla (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries and disruptive editing

You are making false edit summaries to justify your pov.

What vandalism you were reverting?

This edit was surely made in bad faith since the person you reverted is editing since 2014 and had no block and OccultZone is unblocked too.

And you also disrupted other article again like before without checking the source you edit war over. Hope you don't make such edits anymore. Capitals00 (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)