| Revision as of 19:29, 27 August 2014 editMrX (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers97,648 edits →August 2014: perhaps I'm not being clear← 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) |
| (19 intermediate revisions by 6 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) |
|
|
: Bad piece of advice... taking it to ANI will just bring more attention to NK, which he does not need at this point IMO. I am sure that he will come back to edit with a better understanding after the forced break. - ] ] 03:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::No one asked for your input Cwobeel. Please go away. You are not welcome on my talk page. You were one of the editors that was removed reliably sourced, NPOV written, notable information from the article. You have been blocked before. It is not good advice for your to be coming to my talk pages and taking smack.----] (]) 13:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mention at WP:ANI == |
|
|
|
|
|
Per suggestion by Nomoskedacity, the case of your block by Dreadstar has been listed at WP:ANI for discussion. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit-warring and 4RR, yet again == |
|
|
|
|
|
I see that you're just coming off another block for edit-warring, and are already back to 4RR (by my count) at {{la|Rick Perry}}. It's a lot of work to report you to ], so instead of going that route, can you just stop edit-warring? Really—slow down. You're reverting at a very rapid clip, and if you've used the talk page even ''once'' in the past week, I can't find evidence of it. Try limiting yourself, voluntarily, to one edit per day. It's good for the soul, and keeps one out of trouble. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: {{ping|MastCell}}, as a person who commented on the other block, I can't see 4 reverts. Could you perhaps point them out? ] (]) 04:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, because I don't want to get bogged down in the usual technical arguments about revert-counting. If I wanted to do that, then I'd just report them to ] and be done with it. How many reverts do you see? 2? 3? Do you agree that this pace of reverting is excessive (particularly with zero talkpage participation), especially from someone with NazariyKaminski's history? I'd rather just try a word-to-the-wise approach and convince him to stop edit-warring, rather than have a technical argument about whether he's at 3RR instead of 4RR. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Maybe I'm blind, but I see one 'revert' and that may not even count as he just edited the article, wasn't necessarily reverting anyone's contributions specifically. He info, , If you're talking about diffs, that's not edit warring, that's improving the article, making more clear, more redundant, in the background fixes but I don't see any 'reverting' any other contributions. Last time, there was an argument that he was edit warring against Mr.X regarding the charge's name. This doesn't qualify at all in that case, and deleting or moving content in the article isn't 'edit warring', else I would've been blocked a long time ago for my edits at Criticism of Second Life. For strictly wording and no diffs, I don't see any edit wars between users. He's adding content, doing general background fixes and all in all explaining via edit summaries what he's doing; basically the opposite of a disruptive, edit warring user. ] (]) 04:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So, MastCell, what you are saying is that you can't find an example of me edit-warring, you just don't like my editing, right? Yes, that is what you are saying. Where is 4RR that you talk about? You just don't like the fact that I added notable, reliably sourced information that you did not want in the article about Rick Perry and I presented it in a NPOV. It is as simple as that. And since you are an admin and you have an obvious interest in the article as a fellow editor, and many if not most of your edits are opposed to what I am working on, you want to use your position as an admin to intimidate me into stop adding notable, reliably sourced information (presented in a NPOV manner, of course) which you don't like in the article. But it doesn't work that way. My edits stand on their own. I only reverted one edit because a previous editor placed the Jay Root comment back in the article in a good faith, but mistaken, belief that the information was previously removed. I removed the second copy of Jay Root's quote. There is no need for two copies the exact same quote and the editor that I reverted, agrees with me. I'm not edit warring. You just don't like my edits. Those are two different things. Please focus on the substance of the edits and not on me.--] (]) 10:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} Reverting edit performed by Rbbloom while NK was blocked . Reverting edit performed by me while NK was blocked . No discussion in talk, and being these the first actions after returning from a block, does not give great confidence that he learned anything from that block. - ] ] 14:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Trolling again, Cwobeel? You need to learn how to stop shooting off your mouth, right?--] (]) 14:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Your comment only strengthen my point. I will not post any more on your page, but I invite you to engage in discussions instead of just reverting. - ] ] 15:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::<small>(])</small> Never mind. Keep doing what you're doing. (You seem to be under the impression that I've edited the article in opposition to your edits, when in fact I haven't touched ] in more than 2 years, but why let the facts get in the way of a good narrative?) I won't post here any further. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::MastCell, you have commented on the Rick Perry talk page. That' a fact. Also, I still haven't seen the 4RR that you claim I did. But why let facts get in the way of your narrative, right? Also, why is Cwobeel trolling my page? I have asked him over and over and over and over again to please leave, but he just keeps coming back, trying to stick a finger in my eye in his holier-than-thou, sanctimonious way. Shouldn't you ask him why he keeps poking me and prodding me to reciprocate in his childish and boorish behavior? As an admin you really should ask this question, right? All of my edits to the Rick Perry article were additions of notable information, supported by a reliable sources and presented in NPOV manner--without a doubt. I just have not done anything wrong. And based upon your comments on the Rick Perry talk page you just simply don't like my edits, am I right?. It is no more complex than that, right?. I wasn't edit warring and you know it.--] (]) 15:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Off limits == |
|
|
|
|
|
My talk page is now off limits, no more postings there from you. Thank you for your consideration. - ] ] 22:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Good. As I already told you, at least three times, stay off my talk page. I have told you that at least three times and you continued to visit my talk page and make your outlandish holier than thou comments. Go away. You just can't do it. You begged an admin to have mercy on you and that admin fell for it. You are one of the worst edit warriors. You just revert and revert and then you cry foul when others do it to you. And then you cry to the admin for mercy. Unbelievable.--] (]) 22:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== NPA == |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't appreciate accusing me of tag team editing with Cwobeel without any evidence. This violates the ] policy. Please don't do it again.- ]] 22:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Don't tag team.--] (]) 22:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
== August 2014 == |
|
|
] Please ] other editors, as you did on ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. ''{{tq|"He is just editing with Cwobeel backing up his changes."}}. This is the second time in less than a day that you have accused me of editing in concert with another user. Again, please do not make such accusations without solid evidence.''<!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> - ]] 18:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:..and .- ]] 19:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Don't tag team and it won't be an issue. For example today you removed Perry's legal defense (without discussion) from the indictment here: and then I put the Perry's legal defense back into the article here: . Then Cwobeel removed Perry's legal defense (once again, just like without any discussion on the talk page at all) here: . I put it back in here: . Then you cut off (once again without discussion on the talk page) most of Perry's legal defense here: . Then I restored, after asking for comments from you and Cwobeel on the talk page, Perry's legal defense while at the same I trimmed down the wording to accommodate your concerns about the length of summary here: .--] (]) 19:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::First of all, my edits were in accord with policy, guidelines and practice which . Second, I'm not responsible for Cwobeel's edits. There are numerous examples of Cwobeel and I vigorously disagreeing with each other, and editing in opposition to each other. |
|
|
:::'''I will not tolerate any more of these types of accusations from you. They are plainly against the ] policy and I will bring the issue to ANI the next time you do it.''' Got it?- ]] 19:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
