| Revision as of 03:36, 19 August 2014 editArzel (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,013 edits →Blocked← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:59, 31 October 2014 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,946 edits You have been indefinitely blocked from editing. (TW) |
| (47 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
== October 2014 == |
|
'' '' |
|
|
|
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for violating ] at ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ] (]) 22:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> |
|
|
|
|
'' '' |
|
|
|
|
|
==Blocked== |
|
|
I've blocked you for 1 week for edit warring on ]. ] <small>]</small> 21:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I only made three reverts to the Rick Perry article and I was attempting to remove obvious BLP violations such as listing all of the worst potential penalties for an indictment that just happened yesterday. Also, Mr.X and Cwobeel were removing notable information that was supported by reliable sources and presented in NPOV. Why did I get block again?--] (]) 21:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm not seeing any BLP violations; you were edit warring, removing 'abuse of power' when it is clearly stated in the . ] <small>]</small> 21:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So you are saying that since I made three edits that changed the phrase "abuse of power" to "abuse of official capacity" that should be banned for one week? The indictment is for "abuse of official capacity". That is actual name of the charge. The charge is not named "abuse of power". Also, since when is it appropriate to remove information that places the indictment in perspective, providing the facts that several Democrats and liberals find the indictments to be weak and unsupportable? Removing Perry's defense to the indictments is not a BLP violation? Listing only the worst possible penalties for the indictments and not the whole range of possible penalties is not a BLP violation? Also, how is three edits an edit war that demands that you block me? You just said that I was in an edit war, but you did not provide support. What is the support for that claim?--] (]) 21:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::None of this provides you with an exemption to ], and per that Policy ''"it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."''. I blocked you for a week because you were just blocked in April for 72 hours for editwarring on yet ]. Escalating blocks serve as deterrents against continued disruption. The evidence for the block is obvious, and I've provided the diffs above. If you disagree with the block, then by all means put up an unblock request as was outlined . ] <small>]</small> 21:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, it is not obvious. Once again, you did not provide support for your block. You just stated that it is obvious. The two editors MrX and Cwobeel need to stop removing information from the Rick Perry article that is notable, provides a sense of balance to the article to allow the article to read in a neutral manner, and is supported by reliable sources. You have chosen, as an admin, to ignore their horrible editing. Why?--] (]) 21:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I'm not sure what you're talking about at this point, I've provided the diffs of the edit warring I blocked you for above, and by you were involved in an edit war. In any case, from comments on BLP/N, this will go to AN/I for review. And you're free to post your own unblock request here on your talk page. ] <small>]</small> 21:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I was the person that reported the Rick Perry article in the first place. I was attempting to stop the back and forth before it got out of hand. You blocked me for no reason. I was in good faith attempting to make the wording neutral and I made three edits and went to notice board to attempt to stop it before it got out of hand and you blocked me!!!! Listing how Perry could go to jail for 99 years for what he did is a clear violation of BLP!!!! That was outrageous information, intended to inflame and not to educate, and it was not necessary in the article. You blocked me for removing it!!! Amazing. You know that Rick Perry is not going to jail for 99 years and there is no justification for the claim.--] (]) 22:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::It's in the source: . There's no justification for edit warring. ] <small>]</small> 22:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::They did not put in the 5 years. They only put in the 99 years. That is a fact. You are choosing to ignore that fact.--] (]) 22:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::{{ec}} That doesn't make it appropriate per ]. We get sources predicting punishments for crimes all the time. Per ], we don't list them before they are determined. We arn't a tabloid. We report the facts about what happened, we don't predict the future. If someone wants to know what the punishments for abuse of official capacity are, they can refer to Google or another Misplaced Pages article.--v/r - ]] 22:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::That's not quite right. The range of sentences for each count was included in the original version: "up to 99 years" and "2 to 10 years". We follow sources, and multiple sources thought that it was important to convey the magnitude of the indictments by explaining the potential penalties. There's was no violation of ] or ], by any interpretation that I'm aware of. - ]] 22:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} Here's the actual text from the article: "The felony indictment includes two charges: abuse of official capacity, carrying a maximum sentence of 99 years, and coercion of a public servant, carrying a sentence of two to ten years." NK's statement "They only put in the 99 years. That is a fact." is patently false.- ]] 22:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:To be fair, the does say "five to 99 years', but I'm not seeing this as an excuse to edit war. ] <small>]</small> 22:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::To be fair, you are taking the comments of Mr.X more seriously than mine, but to be fair he is the editor that was removing, during an edit war, without comment, reliably sourced information that was notable, and presented in neutral manner. To be fair, you found my editing worthy of a block but to be fair you ignored Mr.X's edit warring. It is what it is. Mr.X and Cwobeel got away with tag team edit warring and you let them. It is as simply as that.--] (]) 01:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Hey ... easy with the accusations. You need to stop edit warring and all will be OK if you do so. Use ] when you get stuck. - ] ] 01:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You may want to take this to ANI after your block is over. You were not warned before your block, you did not break 3RR, you were right about the actual wording (it is in the WASHPO source as well that Dreadstar used against you). This looks like an abuse of admin rights. ] (]) 03:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
