User talk:Sceneshock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

)

[edit] 3RR

You have violated the 3RR policy on Stalin, which allows no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. Please read WP:3RR. - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The tag clearly says not to remove it until the dispute has been resolved. You're breaking policy not me. Sceneshock (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You are in violation of WP:3RR[1][2][3][4], I suggest you revert your most recent edit to avoid a block. 1 != 2 23:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it has already been reverted by someone else so that opportunity is lost. I will not personally make a 3RR block at this time, but someone else may choose to. Please do not repeatedly revert like that. 1 != 2 23:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
So this is how wikipedia functions? An article is considered neutral if two users edit war against one user to remove the tag. So in conclusion, the POV article stays POV, the readers aren't warned about it, and the two users edit warring get off scott free. Great system. Sceneshock (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you read the advice at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, what you do not do is revert over and over. 1 != 2 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Joseph Stalin. 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.

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: "The NPOV tag clearly says not to remove it until the dispute is resolved. Why is another editor getting away with edit warring trying to remove the tag when a number of users clearly think there are POV problems. Also why was I blocked after I had already stopped reverting (I was even warned after my 4th revert). I didn't know you could be blocked for reverting edits that clearly break wikipedia policy."

Decline reason: "I count 5 reverts by you in a 20 minutes timespan. You're the only one breaking 3RR. Note that when 2 peoples disagree with you, it might be a good idea to take a breath and try to communicate instead of dumbly reverting. — -- lucasbfr talk 23:22, 23 May 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 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: "I made 4 reverts, not 5. And I was trying to communicate in the talk page. They (actually just one user) was making nonsensical arguments like "prove those sources backing that popular point of view exist" and reverting without even giving me a chance to reply. Why are they getting off scott-free for this kind of ridiculous and immature behaviour? And once again I didn't know you could be blocked for reverting edits that break policy. Why does the tag say not to remove it until all disputes are resolved?"

Decline reason: "There is no emergency to have that tag applied. Having your way while you talk it out is not an exemption from 3RR, nor is accusing a respected admin of sockpuppetry likely to get you unblocked. — B (talk) 23:51, 23 May 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 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: "For a third time, I did not know that you could be blocked for reverting edits that broke policy. How was I supposed to know this? I wasn't warned until after the 4th revert. And what on Earth are you talking about, I didn't accuse anyone of being a sock puppet. Are you assuming bad faith in that I was implying something that I wasn't? There was only one user replying to me in talk, while two were reverting."

Decline reason: "Your unblock request has already been declined. Just wait it out. Please do not make repeat unblock requests — 1 != 2 00:56, 24 May 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 interpreted "they (actually just one user)" to be a claim that the users with whom you were disagreeing were just one person (sockpuppets). If that claim was not your intention, I apologize for my misinterpretation. --B (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
One user out of 7,286,340 thinking an article is POV does not make it POV. That's why there is no policy against removing a tag (almost any tag). However, there is a policy against edit warring, because this is a serious source of concerns. -- lucasbfr talk 09:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
One user huh? That's interesting, considering that I'm not even the one who put the tag there in the first place, and there were multiple people in talk who think the tag should stay which is what prompted me to become involved in the first place. But hey I guess if you just accuse everyone who strives for NPOV of being a "sockpuppet" for having a certain point of view (actually I'm not pro-Stalin and I'm anti-communist, I just think the article is a load of crap considering he's a very significant historical figure) and systematically block them all, things sort themselves out and wikipedia...well...continues to suck? I don't know, I guess edit warring really is more harmful to the world of online information than biased articles/borderline disinformation. Sceneshock (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
We didn't make up WP:3RR just for you buddy, we apply it fairly broadly. You break it, you get blocked. This has nothing to do with content. 1 != 2 16:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. - I guess 3 reverts within 20 minutes to remove an POV tag on a contentious article without making a valid argument in discussion isn't disruptive behavior right? I guess it's just one of those rules that exist solely to reinforce double standards and assure that no editor gets in the way of the "ideal" POV that administrators see fit, all the while never applying said rule to editors who are disruptive but in agreeance. Sceneshock (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please email me

Please email me regarding the findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters. You can use thatcher131 at gmail dot com. Thatcher 20:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)