User talk:67.168.86.129

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your edits on Killian documents

Hi. I'm sure you meant well, but I had to revert your edit to the Killian documents. Your "improved intro" removed the reference to there being 6 Killian memos in total, and your add of "and many media organizations concluded that the memos were forgeries" is actually misleading, if not outrightly false. Pretty much only the right wing/conservative media "concluded" that the memos were forgeries. The general media has only only described the memos as not having been authenticated for the most part. Since this is a volatile topic with much misinformation floating about on the Internet, especially on blog sites, it's usually best to propose any suggested changes on the Talk page in advance and get some feedback on that. Hope this helps. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that you put back your "improve intro" even after having it explained to you both here and on the article's Talk page that it really isn't improvement in terms of accuracy. I'm afraid I'll have to revert you again, but again I encourage you to discuss further your proposed changes on the appropriate Talk pages. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Warning

Sorry, but your reinsertions of your "improve intro" in the face of Talk page discussion showing issue with your proposed edits has caused a violation of 3RR. This is your official warming, Please desist from edit warring, and again, as has been requested numerous times, please use the Talk page. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your authority for issuing an "official" 3RR warning? I am not edit warring. Every one of my edits has been a a good faith effort to improve the article. I have not made any reverts. I have explained the reason for my changes on the Talk page. Please desist from making 3RR threats. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It's kind of like when someone pops in on a highly volatile article to make substantial, undiscussed, and somewhat questionable changes to the intro and then keeps doing that repeatedly even after someone else keeps pointing out problems and repeatedly asks to discuss the proposed changes first. When that first someone does this 3 or more times, a 3RR warning is applicable and it's actually considered a courtesy -- I've been blocked for just doing 4 edit reverts in the past and without any warnings at all. And any editor can do this. Perhaps you should read this official policy if you are not familiar with any of this. Hope this helps. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You've been blocked for 24 hours for your edit warring. In the future, please discuss on the talk page to reach consensus rather than repeatedly reverting. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. If you wish to contest this block, you may write {{unblock|reason}} on your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your reason for blocking me. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "This blocking was not justfied. My edits were all different and were good faith attempts to produce acceptable and appropriate improvement of the article. I responded to the objections from the other editor, both by explaining the reasons for my edits on the Talk page and by adjusting the text of my edits to accomodate specific concerns. The blocking admin has not justified his charge of "edit warring" on my part."

Decline reason: "A 3RR violation did occur, the block was justified. Please start taking disputes to talk pages rather than repeatedly reverting disputed edits. — Trusilver 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I did take the dispute to the Talk page. I did not repeatedly revert edits. This is clear from the edit log and the Talk page. Please review the record more carefully before exercising admin responsibilities.

It is true that your edits were not exactly the same; however, they had the effect of reverting, at least in part, to a previous version. This is edit warring when done repeatedly. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The edits were not effectively the same, and moreover were a good faith attempt to produce acceptable and appropriate wording.
For example, the original wording said:
The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved four of six documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the United States National Guard.
There was no explanation of what the other two documents were, or why they were not involved in the controversy, or why, if they were not involved in the controversy, they were being mentioned at all. So I removed the "four of six" wording and left the number of documents unquantified. The other editor objected, saying that there were six documents. It wasn't clear to me why the precise number was important for the introductory paragraph (what difference would it have made if there were 5 or 7?) but I changed the wording to say that six documents were involved, as the objecting editor seemed to want. That was not a revert to my previous unquantified wording, and was in fact done to accommodate the other editor! 67.168.86.129 (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "See above."

Decline reason: "The block is appropriate; both of you were edit warring, and both of you drews. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

jpgordon, You did not respond to my explanation of why the block was unjustified. Simply repeating the allegation that I was "edit warring", as Trusilver did to my first request, is not helpful. You have no obligation to remove the block, of course. But please do not close the unblock request without responding to the issue in a meaningful way. Instead, allow another admin who is willing to address the issue close the request. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still unclear about the justification for this block. I went to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents to look at the request for the block to see what information was included there to justify it. I couldn't find any request to block me or any information that would justify such a block. What I found instead was a discussion of the editor I'd been having difficulty with, who evidently has a history of inappropriate behavior and only recently had a block removed. Finding that was not a surprise to me, because when this editor had earlier given me a bogus "official" 3RR warning, I had investigated and found that he was not an admin, and had a history of problematic behavior.. The discussion on the administrator's noticeboard made it even more difficult for me to understand why I had been blocked. The assertion by jpgordon that "both of you were edit warring, and both of you drews" implies an equivalence of the two cases, but that is incorrect because the other editor was blocked in part due to his history of prior misconduct.

I don't want to second-guess the admins regarding the other editor, although personally I probably would not have blocked him for this incident. (No doubt I'm too tolerant.) But I'd still like to know what the justification was for blocking me. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The report based on which I blocked both you and the other editor was at the 3RR noticeboard, not that it makes any difference. As for the warning you received, there is no requirement that a warning be placed by an admin. Any editor may do so. Finally, the justification for blocking you is what we've already said several times: you were edit warring. Edit warring is prohibited. There's not much more to say. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
My review of the 3RR complaint is below. I know that there is no requirement that a warning be given by an admin. But an "official" warning by a non-admin editor with a history of edit warring has the appearance of an attempt at intimidation. I did not believe that there was in fact a 3RR violation. When the blocking admin decided there was, it would have been helpful for him to have notified me of this and allowed me to respond before applying the block. It would also be helpful if admins responding to my unblock requests would have actually addressed the specific incident. Simply repeating the allegation that "you were edit warring", without responding to my explanation of specifics, is obviously unproductive. I know that you had decided I was edit warring, otherwise you would not have applied the block. But I have explained why I believe you were wrong, and you seem unwilling to discuss the issue. But I guess that's your prerogative as an admin. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I see there was an entry for this incident on the 3RR noticeboard. I'll review it and respond. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the complaint on the 3RR noticeboard. It simply listed 5 of my edits, identifying them as "reverts". In fact, only one was a revert. The first one was my original edit. The second was technically a revert, where I reinserted my edits because they had been reverted with no explanation on the article's Talk page. The other edits were good faith attempts to reword my changes to accommodate objections given on the Talk page. The complaining editor later conceded that my edits in fact varied ("a little", he claimed). He said he hadn't noticed this because he'd "had a busy Wiki day". (In other words, he hadn't read my edits with any care before reverting them.) And he noted that my last edit "consists of relatively minor edits". In spite of all this, the admin decided that I was "edit warring" and applied a block. No effort made to give me a chance to defend my editing, which I would have been happy to do. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (67.168.86.129) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! ~ UBeR (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

UBeR, Thanks for the welcome. I am not a new user. My earliest contriubtions to Wikipedia were in 2001, before its first mainstream media coverage. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)