Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hu12 (talk | contribs) at 21:45, 12 December 2007 (→Unblock: Note to second reviewing admin). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(I will answer most posts on this page.)

Edit warring on parkour

For you information Boris and me agreed to add only films and documentaries to main page. Please revert your mistake, and do not assume bad faith.

Also this game is already cited on subpage, there is no need to mention on main. Carlosguitar 21:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have self-reverted as per your concerns. Sfacets 22:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

User:WillNotBeBack‎ was clearly created with a name intended to harass me. One of the accounts few edits was to promote "Noyce Publications". Only one editor that I'm aware of who's ever promoted the works of John Noyce on Misplaced Pages, and that is user:Sahajhist. Sahajhist has now been proven to have abused sock puppets stretching back over a year. That's sufficient evidence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That is no proof. And the name is simply stating that the user will not be back. No reason to blame an editor who, by all appearances is not familiar with Wiki rules regarding socks. Sfacets 22:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible hypocrisy

Why are you applying a {sockpuppet} tag on User:Larouche planet? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Because there was one, reflecting an editor's concerns, and then you removed it, which I found hypocritical to say the least. . Sfacets 10:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I discussed it with the editor who initially added it and he admitted it was merely a hunch based on no evidence. Unless you yourself are the person making the accusation then you should not keep re-adding the tag. Your edits are your responsilibity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

RVT

• • Sorry about th revert on the yoga page I thought that you were blanking the page.Natasha (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tha'ts alright :) Sfacets 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

When was the last time you waited for consensus before making an edit? Did you get consensus before splitting off the meditation article? As for the material itself, it's sourced and relevant so I don't see any reason not to include it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I did wait for consensus before creating a spinoff for the meditation article. The material appears fine, just isn't in the right place. Sfacets 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did you propose splitting off the mediation material, and who participated in this discussion? I can't find it on the SY talk page. Perhaps you only thought you proposed the split and then waited for consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

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

Request reason:

I think upon review of my edits to the article, I was within the 3RR scope. 1, 2, 3. The other edits were not reverts. If I did inadvertantly go over -which I am pretty sure I didn't- then a simple warning would have sufficed, and I would have self-reverted.

Decline reason:

Clear Three-revert rule violation on Nirmala Srivastava. Understand this does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.— Hu12 (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2007 (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 was not being disruptive - I was ensuring that no content was duplicated from Sahaja Yoga meditation - I discussed this on the discussion page. If editors can be blocked for edit warring, why am I the only one blocked? A simple post on my userpage advising me that I had gone over the 3RR would have sufficed for me to revert - now I am blocked for an excessive amount of time. I hardly think this is fair. Sfacets 08:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

During the same 24 hours in which you made 5 reverts to Nirmala Srivastava you also made three reverts to Meditation and at least three reverts to Sahaja Yoga. This is your sixth block in six weeks, so the duration appears reasonable. Your November 4 block was shortened because you promised to stop edit warring. Your November 13 block was shortened because you promised to stop edit warring. Your November 18 block was shortened because you promised to stop edit warring. You claim above that you should have been given an opportunity to undo your reverts. You've been warned several times and given opportunities to undo your reverts, but then you've gone right back to reverting the following day. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This from an editor with massive COI issues who is turning the articles into some kind of circus. Perhaps you should concentrate on improving the articles instead of seeking to block the editor who has most contributed to them. It was three reverts to Nirmala Srivastava, if you look. Never did I go over 3 reverts. You show your bias by being one-sided in your reporting - shame on you. For someone who wants to become part of Arbcom, you are behaving beautifully. You know very well that my previous blocks were unwarranted, and the reasons given were shams like "civility", after I referred to a certain class of admins negatively. It appears I had good reason. Sfacets 21:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=edits were not disruptive, were discussed on discussion page (see above) blocking me for 10 days is excessive, especially since I didn't go over 3RR. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=edits were not disruptive, were discussed on discussion page (see above) blocking me for 10 days is excessive, especially since I didn't go over 3RR. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=edits were not disruptive, were discussed on discussion page (see above) blocking me for 10 days is excessive, especially since I didn't go over 3RR. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Sfacets 21:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note to second reviewing admin. While I am neutral on a reduction of block time. Please consider that the last 6 blocks have occured within the last two months. And four of the total nine blocks were previously reduced predicated on the discontinuation of Sfacets disruption editing. While WP:DISRUPT states the Three revert rule shall not be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy, the violation was also a clear 3RR violation.--Hu12 (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock