User talk:79.66.91.41

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Human League. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --John (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to direct these comments to the user Andi064, who has actually broken the 3RR by reverting FOUR of my edits in a 24 hour period. With regards to the actual issue of it looking like a fansite entry, I'm afraid it still does despite the genuine efforts I noticed you yourself made. Basically, the article could do with a major gutting and I'm happy to collaborate with other editors on the project but I'm not going to waste my time if users like the one I mentioned above are simply going to get territorial and revert the work of others.79.66.91.41 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--John (talk) 16:20, 5 April 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: "3RR policy not broken as there have only been two genuine reverts within a 24 hour period, both of which were countering the "territorial" reverts from another user (Andi064) who has actually made four reverts in a 24 hour period -without discussion or consensus - and faced no sanctions for doing do. The administrator who blocked me has failed to address this issue, despite it being mentioned to him above."

Decline reason: "You aren't blocked for 3RR, you are blocked for edit-warring. Besides, 3RR doesnt mean that you are allowed to revert 3 times a day at all time. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:56, 5 April 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.

79.66.91.41 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 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: "as you can see above, the reason for the block was the 3RR policy. It is stated quite clearly. 2 reverts do not constitute an edit war. Furthermore, if I am to be blocked then the other user engaged in the dispute (Andi064) should be blocked as well, particularly since s/he was the person who actually started reverting and made far more reverts in the same space of time. To not block the other user would show favoritism from the original blocking administrator, which would be inappropriate"

Decline reason: "Your block log says: 20:20, 5 April 2008 John (Talk / contribs / block) blocked "79.66.91.41 (Talk)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring). Edit-warring is a broader term, it also covers non-reverts, and the fact that someone else should probably be blocked is not a reason to unblock you. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 17:17, 5 April 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.

.

Re Remarks you have made above. Firstly log on! You are editing across three separate IPs which is the trademark of a vandal. You demonstrate a knowledge of Wikipedia procedures which leads us to believe that you actually have a user account that you are not using to edit because you intend to create conflict. An IP edit combined with your language and disruptive behaviour means that no one is taking your edits seriously.

If you intend to co-operate with other users then the language in your edit summaries suggests otherwise and you have engaged in conflict with people who have been working on these articles for over a year. Your {fan} tag was removed today again, because it was removed 3 times yesterday by myself and two separate admins. By reinserting it after copyediting by User:EscapeOrbit and user:John indicates that you are just using it as a statement of personal opinion. Two admins plus myself now say that it is not required, end of conversation! Constantly reinserting it egregiously is vandalism and why you were banned. You certainly will NOT be gutting this article as you have threatened to do and can look forward to a longer ban if you try and remove content or make disruptive edits after this ban expires. I am territorial only in that, I only look after the Human League on Wikipedia. Which means I get to a damaged/vandalised Human League article before others on its watch list. I have also rverted another user today. My user page indicates my pedigree on Wikipeda, if an admin believes I have acted incorrectly then he will inform me on my talk page first. The Human League articles are the work of many people who come here to cooperate, If you wish to bring any knowledge you have of the band to the articles in our group then you are welcome to assist, but lose the attitude and slash and burn mind set first. andi064 T . C 18:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What utter rubbish.
1) I edited using TWO different IP addresses (not three) because whenever I disconnect I automatically get given a new IP address. If I was a vandal as you claim then what is to stop me from merely disconnecting and getting a new IP address to continue this so-called vandalism? Furthermore, IP edits are NOT against the rules on Wiki or else it would be mandatory for all editors to log in - so don't try to use this as a convenient excuse for your own edit-warring behaviour.
2) You are the vandal here. You have abitrarily reverted a series of my edits, for three of which you did not even bother to specify a reason. That is vandalism.
3) user:EscapeOrbit did NOT remove the fansite tag, s/he merely started to tidy the article up, nothing more. This tag was removed by yourself (which clearly constitutes edit warring itself), and by user:John who removed it as he did some copyediting. Without undoing any of his editing to the main article itself, I replaced the tag WITH AN EXPLANATION as to why it was still warranted. Once again today you have removed it without any discussion at all. And just because you and user:John might agree on this matter does NOT mean it is the end of the discussion (not that "discussion" is something you bothered to enter into anyway).
Wikipedia is full of editors who get extremely territorial about pages they consider to be "theirs" because they consider themselves to be an authority on the subject. This often leads to them thinking that they can do whatever they like and that their opinion is the only opinion. Sadly, they're wrong. The territorial behaviour you have exhibited and language that you have used in your posting on my talk page makes it quite clear that you are in fact one of these types of editors. And just because you have gotten away with it so far, don't kid yourself that this kind of behaviour will be tolerated.79.66.91.41 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, its on the record that I've advised you as I am required to do. If you ignore that advice then personally I couldn’t care less. Yes it's your prerogative to hide behind an IP but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously, and I certainly won't debate with someone who lacks the moral courage to put their name to their actions. I'm sure you will find out very quickly that John is not the only admin who watches that article, crack on and vandalise it again if you like and you will just be banned again. If you feel that I am 'getting away with something' please do refer me to WP:AIN. It's all a bit sad really, when you could be on here doing something constructive like the rest of us.andi064 T . C 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Clearly you didn't comprehend a single word I said. It doesn't honestly surprise me. You will note I have posted this message from a new IP address so the ban is no longer effective, but it proves the point that if vandalism truly was my game (the way it obviously is yours) then I'd be free to run riot. And have I done so? No. Labelling me a vandal when YOU are the one who is trigger happy on the revert button just tells us all what kind of a person you are. And I believe that reminding possessive, territorial editors that they have NO OWNERSHIP over any of the Wiki article pages is indeed doing something constructive because it will make you think about your actions in future. I think in your case, it might well be a long shot given your apparent behaviour. 79.66.124.46 (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)