User talk:Rhetor230

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chief Illiniwek. 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. Barry m (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


The third opinion for the article Chief Illiniwek has now been posted at Talk:Chief_Illiniwek#Third Opinion. Please edit the Acceptability Section to indicate whether you agree with the Third Opinion or not. Barry m (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


I've now re-written it to rectify the points you raised, but I think including 'dancing student' somehow devalues the role the mascot/symbol plays. Please edit the Acceptability Section to indicate whether you agree with the Third Opinion or not. Barry m (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Looks like we're making progress. I'll give User:Alatari 24 hours to respond and if he doesn't then we'll go with the re-write with your recommended changes. Barry m (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. Rhetor230 (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
He didn't reply so I've put the re-write up with the changes. Barry m (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Rhetor230 (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've put yet another re-write up for discussion Barry m (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


I've edited the article to include your rewrite. Barry m (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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. -- lucasbfr talk 09:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
User was logging out to avoid scrutiny Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justinm1978. -- lucasbfr talk 09:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please also note that being a Single-purpose account, you are held as a higher standard. If this is not your primary account, you should have a look at our policies concerning multiple accounts. Namely, don't use multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. -- lucasbfr talk 12:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This is utterly ridiculous. I am not justinm. You are wrong and I demand to be unblocked as well as an apology. This is abuse by Lucasbfr.

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: "We are not the same person. You are abusing your status."

Decline reason: "CheckUser evidence proves that you logged out to edit war. east.718 at 23:18, January 15, 2008"

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

You violated the 3 revert rule (4 reverts if we count your IP edit that you used by mistake), were edit warring and got the normal block for such a violation. If an admin is getting abused today, it's me. You can ask an other admin to review the block on your user talk page but I stand by it.
Considering the fact that you only edit one article, it's normal that other editors raise eyebrows when you team tag with an other user, and hold you to a better standard. -- lucasbfr talk 23:20, 15 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: "So now you acknowledge that justinm and I are not the same person? Others were 'tagteaming' and violating 3rr as well. Are they blocked? You should at least apologize for being wrong about accusing justinm and I of being the same person. Sorry you feel abused here, but really, that is ridiculous. I request other admins to please unblock me as Lucasbfr was wrong about accusing me of being the same person as justinm and admits he holds me to a different stnadard just because I only edit one article. He further accused me of deliberately logging off to avoid scrutiny but I did that out of unffamiliarity with wiki -- should I be penalized for that? This is unfair and amounts to admin abuse."

Decline reason: "What if any connection exists between you and Justin is irrelevant as far as this issue is concerned. You were blocked for edit warring on the article. Repeatedly reverting to your preferred version, particularly when you have no other unrelated edits, is unhelpful. — B (talk) 00:31, 16 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.

This seems petty and like Lucasbfr is now trying to save face after having been shown to be wrong both in his accusation that justinm and I are the same person and that I was supposedly deliberately logging off to avoid scrutiny. This reflects poorly on wikipedia.

I think you misunderstood me (permanent link to my message, link to your block log where I incidentally screwed up the link, the message was supposed to be "Edit warring: Checkuser block Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justinm1978"). I didn't block you for violating the sockpuppet policy, for for violating the three-revert rule. I added, as a side note, that you should have a look at WP:SOCK, since you might also be violating it. Had an administrator blocked you for abusing WP:SOCK, the block would have been much longer. -- lucasbfr talk 09:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Lucasbfr--

Then why did you block me more that 24 hours after my last edit when I was in dispute resolution? Blocking me at that point solely for 3rr violation seems punitive and even vindictive. Here is what you also wrote --
User was logging out to avoid scrutiny Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justinm1978. -- lucasbfr talk 09:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please also note that being a Single-purpose account, you are held as a higher standard. If this is not your primary account, you should have a look at our policies concerning multiple accounts. Namely, don't use multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. -- lucasbfr talk 12:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It does not seem that the 3rr violation was your only, or perhaps even main, reason. It does seem like your reasons were suspected sockpuppeting (wrongly calling me justinm) and alleging that I was purposefully logging out.
Again, why ban me for violating 3rr 24 hours after my last edit at a time when there was a truce in the edit war and I was engaging in the dispute resolution?

Rhetor230 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)