Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:18, 30 June 2010

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Tons (band)

You've crossed WP:3RR there, content disputes are not obvious vandalism remember. I see from your block record you agreed not to edit war and break 3RR in the past. 31 hours I'm afraid, the usual guidelines regarding unblocking apply. S.G. _ping! 21:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've extended the block to one month as your last one week block seems not to have affected your problematic behavior. Vsmith (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit that is claimed to have crossed 3RR is not a revert at all. I was asked to provide sources for the content being edited, and the fourth edit to the article, which is not a revert at all was only supposed to do so. The editors at fault here are User:Munci and User:Rockgenre, who have violated WP:RS and WP:POV here by claiming that sources identify the band Tons as nu metal, when, in fact, they do not, and instead say punk rock. Why block me for one month? What does that accomplish, other than remove my ability to remove vandalism from the articles of much ignored topics pertaining to obscure subject matter? Good call - you blocked the person who actually abides by the rules for a month. If someone deletes parts of an article I'm watching, no one's going to catch it for a month unless I'm there to pay attention to it. Sugar Bear (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Who's going to do something about this kind of vandalism? The last time I was blocked, no one touched the article after this guy deleted sourced content. I had to restore the sourced material a week after it was deleted. And you want me to not be able to undo edits like this for a month? To allow an editor to delete huge chunks of an article, but to not allow me to restore it? (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

Actually, I was already watching the edit war going on at Juggalo and if it did not stop soon I was going to hand out warnings, and if that didn't work, blocks, regardless of if 3RR was in breach or not. JimmyBallgame raised content related concerns on this article, which whether founded or not, made this a content dispute, not vandalism. The appropriate response was to try and deal with these concerns on the talk page; neither party did this. Some comments left on JimmyBallgame's talk page, such as , only aggravate matters, and given that JimmyBallgame was a relatively new user, were also rather bitey. I have now asked JimmyBallgame to not engage in edit wars in the future, and that given that he is still learning and has been a generally productive user since the unblock, further action would now be unhelpful. CT Cooper (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The edits clearly were vandalism. JimmyBallgame removed material that was backed up by reliable sources, and sloppily as well. At one point, the "s" in "wrestlers" remained even though, in Jimmy's edit, there is only one wrestler remaining thanks to Jimmy's vandalism. It's not a content dispute. The sources back up what is stated. JimmyBallgame is a vandal. PAY ATTENTION. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

Please read WP:NOTVAND. You clearly don't understand the difference between vandalism and a content dispute. That alone should help you in avoiding future edit warring. Jauerback/_dude. 01:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand that this is not a content dispute. The user paid no attention to the sources and text and indiscriminately removed segments. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

Yeah, you must be right. I apologize on behalf of everyone else who is telling you otherwise. It's obvious that you throughly read WP:NOTVAND and understand it better than the rest of us. Jauerback/_dude. 03:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I am not intending to edit war. This block is clearly a mistake. The edit that is claimed to have crossed 3RR is not a revert at all.

Decline reason:

Regardless of your stated intentions, the revision history of Tons (band) makes it quite clear that you did edit war; and your discussion here indicates you intend to continue in the same way. Content disputes are not vandalism. --jpgordon 02:59, 22 June 2010 (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.

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

Request reason:

No, pay attention, I don't intend to edit war.

Decline reason:

Actions speak louder than words, and it is difficult to dismiss that you have been blocked multiple times for edit warring, and hence demonstrated that short blocks are not going to change your behaviour. The comments you have made on this page post-block are also evidence that needs to be considered when reviewing this request, and at present they swing things in a way which is not in your favour. By dismissing JimmyBallgame's edits as vandalism, as well as demonstrating a non-understanding of the difference between a content dispute and vandalism, you have shown an intent to continue edit warring against him rather than to engage in dispute resolution should you be unblocked. CT Cooper (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2010 (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.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. RG (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

On the basis of good-standing history, and the fact that I have stated that I do not intend to edit war.

Decline reason:

Thing is, you don't have a good history, you've been blocked several times for edit warring. I can't blame you for trying this approach as it seems to have worked for you in the past, but it is basically The Boy who Cried Wolf situation at this point, you simply can't be taken at your word that understand what edit warring is and will not engage in it further in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2010 (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 clearly a witchhunt. The user Rockgenre has no concept or understanding of the rules or regulations of Misplaced Pages, and is exploiting his own petty edit war to remove anyone from Misplaced Pages who he doesn't like. My blocking here is Wiki Fascism. I never engaged in any edit war and I should not have been blocked for a month. I do not deserve any of the treatment I have received here from all editors. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

By definition it is impossible for only one user to be involved in an edit war. You were blocked for a month as you are a repeat offender in this regard. As to the rest of your accusations, see WP:NOTTHEM. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that you've socked in the past to evade 3rr, and blocks, and were blocked indef for it, then unblocked on the condition you would not edit war or sock, I am sad to see this. If you have indeed socked, I suggest you admit to it now, and I won't push for your indef block again. I'll push for 6 months to a year, as you broke your conditions of original unblocking.— Dædαlus 02:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

RG has no evidence or basis for his accusations. The edits were made anonymously from a UF computer with several unrelated edits, whereas I have mostly edited from my home. The claim that the edit matches my own is untrue, being that this is the edit of mine that RG refers to and this is the anon's edit. Completely different. I find this kind of attack incredibly insulting to my intelligence. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC))

I'd say he has plenty of base, since all of your confirmed IP socks, Ibaranoff, are based in Florida. I find it highly unlikely that kind of coincidence would occur. I'll be taking this up with Gwen, since she's the one you made that promise to, and she was the one that unblocked you. You were warned.— Dædαlus 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not even a coincidence, considering that the edits are completely different. The only connection is that an anonymous editor edited the same article I did. If you're going to frame me for something I didn't do, why not apply every edit to every article I've ever edited in the past from IPs in Florida to me? That doesn't make any sense. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC))

You're right on one part; it isn't a coincidence. But it stops there. Even if the amount of sourcing was different, you both make the exact same change: removing one genre and replacing it with another. On top of the facts that those are the IP's first edits to the article, when all previous edits had been in unrelated subjects, that they come from the same state of you, have roughly the same editing times as you, not to mention when they did begin editing, they did so directly after you were blocked, is clear evidence you have sockpuppetted.

Claiming otherwise until you're blue in the face doesn't change the facts. I don't need to pull out all the stops just to flag you with a sock case, the evidence is quite clear, and as I'm sure you've learned the first time, your word doesn't hold up in things like this. You lied for days, until you were finally indef blocked, and then came out with the truth. Not to mention of course, during those lies, you used the same exact arguments you're using here; The edits are completely different, to name one.

I don't need to pull out the stops with Gwen. She's familiar with this case, she's the one that indef blocked you. I fully trust her to look into the situation, read all the material, and make an accurate judgment. You've edit warred before, and you've socked to edit war. It isn't out of possibility you would do so again.— Dædαlus 00:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Good-standing history, will not edit war, unblock required to defend myself from false sockpuppetry accusation.

Decline reason:

If you call this "ood-standing history", I have no idea what can be called a bad history. Declined. T. Canens (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2010 (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.

Your block history shows you were unblocked twice before when you promised not to edit war, and yet three edit war blocks followed your first promise, and another edit warring block before mine which followed your second promise. This is now your third promise, and you have block evasion and socking to boot. Good-standing history seems pretty much a false statement, and I don't think your promise not to edit war is worth the interweb it is cast into. S.G. _ping! 23:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've written several GA and FAs. The block evasion/sock accusations are completely false. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC))

We've been over this before, Ibaranoff, and it didn't help you the first time. Good behavior does not excuse bad behavior.— Dædαlus 00:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. RG (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

If you want to remove or archive the talk that's ok, but blocked users are not permitted to remove block notices or declined unblock requests while the block is still active. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing block notices (and more or less anything else) is ok, removing declined unblock requests is not ok (Misplaced Pages:Userpage#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

• It appears to me you can no longer see the forest through the trees and have lost sight of what Misplaced Pages is all about and why you liked it in the first place. I find that very unfortunate. I don't know if you remember this but you were actually a user who explained some important things to me when I was a newbie here. And you did a good job at it too, your personal message helped me understand not just that OR isn't allowed, but why that is. When I recalled this the other day it made this case all the more poignant for me. It's really unfortunate that you do not seem to be able to stop yourself from edit warring and evading your block as I believe you still could make valid contributions to Misplaced Pages if you could control these issues better. I suggest that you need a break. Consider the standard offer for blocked users, and please, please don't keep evading the block as it's only going to make things worse for everyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dædαlus 00:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)