| Revision as of 17:23, 5 October 2010 editIntgr (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers32,254 edits Final warning for edit warring← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:59, 29 January 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for disruptive revert warring, as you did at ]. From your ], this seems to be your only purpose. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the ] first. ] (]) 23:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --><!-- Template:Uw-deoablock --> | |||
| ==October 2010== | |||
| ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to constitute ] and have been ] or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> ] (]) 17:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=This block resulted from attempts to remove a challenged material (a hoax attack) from the ] article. The material violates the second paragraph of ]. See the ] for more information. The user ] stopped participating in the discussion but this did not prevent him from restoring the challenged material in the ] article even though he was informed that this violates the rules defined by ].|decline=This is a content dispute. It's wonderful that you are engaged in discussion on the article's talk page, but continuing to edit war during that discussion is not acceptable. Unblocking is unlikely until you understand this. ] ] 15:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to ] Misplaced Pages, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism3 --> ] (]) 15:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=The rules set by ] must be respected by everybody. The user ] did not bother to invalidate my arguments and left the ]. Therefore, I had no other choice than to remove the material violating ]. A <b>hoax</b> attack is a <b>serious issue</b> when a security product is concerned. My actions supported by ] <b>cannot</b> be called disruptive editing. On the contrary, adding a material violating ] is a ]: <i>sometimes a Misplaced Pages editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable</i>. Where will Misplaced Pages end if it does not get rid of hoaxes? This block is unjustified as I was removing a material violating ]. ] (]) 16:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC) |decline=Verifiability-related claims are not among the exceptions that justify edit-warring, see ]. Besides, the had plenty of citations and therefore appears ''prima facie'' verifiable, and talk page consensus seems to support including it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| ==Notice about ]== | |||
| If you actually want to ''improve'' the TrueCrypt article then create a talk page section on ] and we can discuss it. Don't expect to have an intelligible conversation in edit comments in the middle of an edit war. If you continue ] then you will be banned, without making any progress and after wasting your own time and several other person's. | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|The ] made it clear that the material is challenged (the developers of TrueCrypt declared the attack invalid). Therefore, the material violates the second paragraph of ]: <i>This policy requires that anything <b>challenged or likely to be challenged</b>, including all quotations, be attributed to a <b>reliable source</b> in the form of an inline citation, and that the <b>source directly supports the material in question</b>.</i> Even though it is required by the rules, the material is not directly supported by any reliable source (Black Hat does not peer review the presentations -- it can present hoaxes and the news sites just reproduce them). ] (]) 18:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)|decline=Even if you are correct, it does not justify edit warring, which is what you are blocked for. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC) }} | |||
| I will also note that the "external links" guideline is named as such '''because it applies to external links''', not article content — and the linked articles do not ''contain'' malware — they ''talk about'' it. Do you think the whole ] article should also be deleted? -- ] <small>]]</small> 16:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Please see ] (the three revert rule policy). It seems you have deleted valid article content a good six or seven times (I can't be bothered to check your destructive edits in detail - there are so many of them!). I think it's pretty clear you're in violation of this rule, which counts as implicit vandalism. Please stop! ] (]) 16:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages can never be trusted. ] (]) 20:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==October 2010 cont.== | |||
| :I think you misunderstand. ]: | |||
| ] This is the '''final warning''' you will receive regarding your ]. If you continue to make edits against the ], you may be '''] without further notice'''. In the future, please make an effort to ], instead of edit warring. -- ] <small>]]</small> 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :#You've been told your interpretation of ] is off, and you haven't listened | |||
| :#You've kept edit-warring despite being told stop | |||
| :#You refused to engage in any consensus building activities such as an RFC | |||
| :#I can see you didn't bother to read ] either as your requests for unblock have showed no contrition. | |||
| :#You've completely refused to even acknowledge the points brought up on the other side of the debate | |||
| :This is classic ] on your part. We've seen it before, we'll see it again. If you're not willing to listen when multiple people tell you something, many of them administrators who have been here for a while and have a sincere desire to see consensus building, then we don't you to edit; hence your block. Of course, I have no question you'll ignore this statement too and refuse to see any wrong-doing. ] (]) 22:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:59, 29 January 2022
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
LogicKey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block resulted from attempts to remove a challenged material (a hoax attack) from the TrueCrypt article. The material violates the second paragraph of WP:Verifiability. See the discussion for more information. The user User:Intgr stopped participating in the discussion but this did not prevent him from restoring the challenged material in the TrueCrypt article even though he was informed that this violates the rules defined by WP:Verifiability.
Decline reason:
This is a content dispute. It's wonderful that you are engaged in discussion on the article's talk page, but continuing to edit war during that discussion is not acceptable. Unblocking is unlikely until you understand this. Kuru (talk) 15:23, 18 October 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.
LogicKey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The rules set by WP:Verifiability must be respected by everybody. The user User:Intgr did not bother to invalidate my arguments and left the discussion. Therefore, I had no other choice than to remove the material violating WP:Verifiability. A hoax attack is a serious issue when a security product is concerned. My actions supported by WP:Verifiability cannot be called disruptive editing. On the contrary, adding a material violating WP:Verifiability is a disruptive editing: sometimes a Misplaced Pages editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable. Where will Misplaced Pages end if it does not get rid of hoaxes? This block is unjustified as I was removing a material violating WP:Verifiability. LogicKey (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Verifiability-related claims are not among the exceptions that justify edit-warring, see WP:EW. Besides, the content you removed had plenty of citations and therefore appears prima facie verifiable, and talk page consensus seems to support including it. Sandstein 17:09, 18 October 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.
LogicKey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The discussion made it clear that the material is challenged (the developers of TrueCrypt declared the attack invalid). Therefore, the material violates the second paragraph of WP:Verifiability: This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question. Even though it is required by the rules, the material is not directly supported by any reliable source (Black Hat does not peer review the presentations -- it can present hoaxes and the news sites just reproduce them). LogicKey (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Even if you are correct, it does not justify edit warring, which is what you are blocked for. --jpgordon 18:16, 18 October 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.
Misplaced Pages can never be trusted. LogicKey (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand. If multiple people keep telling you you're wrong, and you're the only one disagreeing, they might have a point:
- You've been told your interpretation of WP:V is off, and you haven't listened
- You've kept edit-warring despite being told stop
- You refused to engage in any consensus building activities such as an RFC
- I can see you didn't bother to read WP:GAB either as your requests for unblock have showed no contrition.
- You've completely refused to even acknowledge the points brought up on the other side of the debate
- This is classic disruptive editing on your part. We've seen it before, we'll see it again. If you're not willing to listen when multiple people tell you something, many of them administrators who have been here for a while and have a sincere desire to see consensus building, then we don't you to edit; hence your block. Of course, I have no question you'll ignore this statement too and refuse to see any wrong-doing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)