A Registered Poster
A Registered Poster, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi A Registered Poster! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC) |
3RR
edit
A Registered Poster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is in response to the arbitration request that I made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_attempts_at_censorship.2C_tag-teaming_reverts.2C_on_page_for_2014_Crimean_Referendum_by_User:Volunteer_Marek
I can't imagine how Guy came to the conclusion that they did. I am here to contribute accurate, and verified information, and it is because that is the case that I have defended my edits, which I believe I have done properly and comprehensively. I ask that this block be reviewed, because I do not see justification for it, in light of my work, in light of my defense, and in light of my making effort to bring arbitration into what has become a continued issue with one person. When Guy says "It's pretty clear you are here to Right Great Wrongs, and your behaviour raises substantial suspicions that this is not your first or only account," first of all, I opened an arbitration request to receive arbitration in a dispute, which I believe I have been the victim in, without requesting punishment, blocking, or any type of punitive measure for the other party. I requested arbitration. So, the claim "It's pretty clear you are here to Right Great Wrongs" isn't based upon anything. It seems to me that Guy is, themselves, acting impulsively in response to my effort to be responsible about an issue, and to avoid further escalation or back-and-forth editing. Secondly, claiming that my "behaviour raises substantial suspicions that this is not your first or only account" is based on absolutely nothing. I would think that a person who stands by their work and reaches out for arbitration on an issue is the opposite of that, and is valuing their own effort and presence, here, and is interesting in contributing to a quality encyclopedia. If I were using multiple accounts, I wouldn't put effort into defending this one. But, rather than see things as they are, it seems to me that there is dog-piling happening here, and certain people are responsible with their emotions and sentiments, rather than with objective consideration. This is my first, and my only Wikipedia account, and I have made all of my Wikipedia edits and efforts with only this account. There is no evidence or cause to think otherwise, and my defense of this account should be taken as evidence for that, rather than evidence to the contrary. I know that my edits have been in good-faith, and also in keeping with the spirit and letter of Wikipedia guidelines. The responses and resistance I have received, however, from people who do not practice their own words, and who follow their own presumptions and sentiments, rather than Wikipedia's guidelines, in deciding who is serving Wikipedia and who isn't. I think it is clear that once one long-time editor sets the stage, further responses from Wikipedia established editors and admins are largely set in tone and willingness, predisposed against anything a new editor says or does.
My good-faith, well-researched, and substantiated edits, and myself, have been met with non-sanctioned edit reverts, false appeals to Wiki:BRD that are contradicted by Wiki:BRD, dog-piling from admins who clearly took a tl;dr approach to dispute resolution, and paranoid suspicions about my account and usage of Wikipedia (I guess there blocking me was pre-determined, and there wasn't enough to go on to enforce such without adding the baseless conjecture that there are doubts whether this is my first or only Wikipedia account).
I hope that there are other admins who can see reason, and this situation for what it has become, who will look at the edits Volunteer Marek and Famspear reverted to see whether they followed reverting guidelines, and look at the ordering of events that has occurred, and see that the behaviour I have encountered has been comprehensively outside of Wikipedia's endorsement, and that all I've done is pursue good-faith edits, responsibly - making edits to address criticism, and ensure my information is honest, accurate, and with proper substantiation. A Registered Poster (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your brief editing history consists of edit warring, accusations of bad faith, and failure to bring disputed content to the article's talk page. You are fixated on one subject and a couple of editors. Based on your comments here, I have every confidence you will launch right back into exactly the same behavior that got you this block in the first place. I would not even consider lifting this block without a promise to completely avoid Volutneer Marek, the Crimean Crisis, and reverts. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2016 (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 recent editing history at Crimean status referendum, 2014 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Dear Registered Poster: Yes, this IS how Wikipedia works. You ARE required to obtain consensus from other editors BEFORE repeatedly re-adding controversial edits to articles. When another editor challenges and removes your edits, it is your responsibility to discuss your edits on the article talk page and achieve consensus from other editors BEFORE re-inserting your material in the article.
Instead of following that rule, you have repeatedly broken the rules yourself -- by repeatedly reverting other editors within a 24 hour period, by not discussing your challenged edits on the article talk page FIRST, and by making a personal attack on editor Volunteer Marek.
Please review Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Famspear (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- That is a very biased interpretation of events.
- As the information has been edited to accommodate the original criticisms, it no longer is the same body of information that is being reversed, and so the three-revert rule does not apply. What is being reversed now is not represented by the criticisms of the first reversal - it is a different body of information, and blindly reversing it without review of the new revisions does not substantiate as valid.
- A Registered Poster (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are incorrect. You made four separate reverts today ([1][2][3][4]), and regardless of what you were reverting, they are still reverts and the rule does apply. If you make any reverts on the article again when you are unblocked, you will be blocked again. You should discuss your proposed changes on the talk page and get consensus for them before attempting to make nay more changes. Thanks, Number 57 17:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Famspear's assertions are found to be False, and opposed, in the WP:BRD which Famspear keeps referencing as justification for performing the reverts which led to my exceeding the 3RR rule (which I was unfamiliar with, at the time, and which I acknowledge to have contravened - as did, in principle, Volunteer Marek and Famspear, by organizing a total of 4 reverts while only technically side-stepping the definition of 3 reverts by one person, though not its principle and purpose):
- - "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."
- - "BRD is never a reason for reverting"
- - "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work"
- - "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones."
- - "Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit, and whether you would like to make that bold edit instead."
- - "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it."
- - "Some editors may invoke this process by name in the edit summary; however, BRD is never a reason for reverting."
- - "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."
- - "Warning: engaging in similar behavior by reverting a contribution during an edit war could be seen as disruptive and may garner sanctions. Never continue an edit war as an uninvolved party."
- - "No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion."
- - "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring"
- - "When in doubt, edit!"
- - "Bold, revert, bold again: Don't stop editing, and don't discuss. Make a guess about why the reverter disagreed with you, and try a different edit to see whether that will be accepted."
- - " Feel free to try a new bold edit during the discussion if the new edit reasonably reflects some aspect of the opposing editors' concerns."
- Also, Number 57, you wrote on the page history of the Wikipedia page for the 2014 Crimean Referendum "(rv obvious IP socking)"... however, that revert was not mine. As I've told you, I will pursue my edits in-keeping with Wikipedia's rules. Paranoia-fuelled protectionism ends up being hypocrisy, and risks diminishing site-wide respect for those who use it as their tool - and it also raises the spectres of partiality, and of emotion-driven administration. And, in this instance, it has also undone someone's honest and presumably good-faith editing, restricted editing for other people based on false grounds, and accused a person innocent of the conjecture (who is myself). Please remember, people, that Wikipedia's rules are not meant to only be applied to those existing beneath a glass-ceiling that a clique of Wiki admins and long-time editors view themselves as existing above. A Registered Poster (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)It's pretty clear you are here to Right Great Wrongs, and your behaviour raises substantial suspicions that this is not your first or only account. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)