Jump to content

User talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8680:E900:0:0:0:0/64

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block made without warning, with two unsubstantiated behavioral claims (no links to specific edits). A WP:ANI/I report cited reverts all made on separate days over a 16-day period (3R not violated) as well as incorrectly associated those edits with an RfC discussion on the article's neutrality (not the reliable source tag). During the period those reverts occurred, only I had expressed an opinion about the tag on the article's talk page [1]. Circumstantial evidence suggests the block got made specifically to prevent future NPOV criticisms related to that article (compiled in three parts: [2] [3] [4]).

I would call that a game theory or parallel consciousness conspiracy to POV-push.

Would recommend the Arbitration Committee place sanctions on the article:

Decline reason:

You don't have to violate 3RR to be determined to be edit warring. While 3RR is a bright line, you can still be considered to be edit warring with fewer reverts, or if the reverts occur over more than 24 hours. Nor are you entitled to any certain number of warnings. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Note for reviewing admin - I believe this refers to my previous procedural decline at User talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:8D38:412:2186:51A4. As I've already reviewed once, I shall let another admin take this up. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 09:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: If editors refuse to discuss a change to an article while insisting that change get made, wouldn't that constitute edit warring? At what point did I refuse to discuss that particular change to the article? If I did not commit edit warring by violating 3RR, how did I?

Also, why did you de-format my writing?

2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6 (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "de format" any writing; I closed your initial unblock request after reviewing it. You are free to make another, as you have. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[5] strange that you say that. 2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6 (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I now see what you are saying. I copy-pasted the template with your language in it, the formatting does not carry over. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah no problem, thank you for telling me as well as thank you for explaining your decision further as I asked : 3
2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6 (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8680:E900:0:0:0:0/64 2

[edit]

(Unblock request moved to: User talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:0:0:0:0/64. Please close.)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

A WP:AN/I report cites 3 reverts on separate days, incorrectly associating WP:MEDRS's removal with an RfC discussion on the article's neutrality. During the period those reverts occurred, only I had expressed an opinion about the tag on the article's talk page [6]. Circumstantial evidence suggests the block got made specifically to prevent future NPOV criticisms related to that article (compiled in three parts: [7] [8] [9]) rather than to end an edit war.

Administrator duration guidelines had not gotten followed. No attempt to mediate got made. No one suggested a means for conflict resolution, viable or otherwise. No one asked the other participants not to participate in that war. I participated in that war, but no one not even the other participants refusing to discuss asked me not to. I wanted to discuss; I did not want an edit war, but I had no idea how else to compel my opposition to discuss with me on the talk page.

Would recommend the Arbitration Committee place sanctions on the article:

  • allowing IP edits;
(so suicidal individuals may remain anonymous, with the plausible deniability a dynamic IP affords)
  • imposing 1RR requiring discussion before reversion;
(to prevent future edit wars, since discussions involving this topic get emotionally difficult to read even while imposing one's will)
  • disallowing non-1RR related blocks without high community participation in the decision.
(due to the article's popularity combined with the topic's nature prone to violent disagreement on moral grounds
moral grounds which for some administrators may supersede wikipedia's stated goals)

2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6 (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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.

@331dot: Telling me I didn't get blocked for 3RR, doesn't tell me why I got blocked.
What criteria for edit-warring have I fulfilled and how?

Standard practice should suggest you restate the reason and evidence for a block when you deny an appeal.

2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6 (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:EW states, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". An edit war "occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". 331dot (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: WP:EW states this condition to what you said:
  • "(a potentially controversial change) may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle.
  • An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts."
I had not broken the BRD cycle, yet the BRD cycle had broke constituting an edit-war. Administrator duration guidelines had not gotten followed. No attempt to mediate got made. No one suggested a means for conflict resolution, viable or otherwise. No one asked the other participants not to participate in that war. I participated in that war, but only other participants refusing to discuss asked me not to. I think blocking me to end that war without first requiring everyone discuss, ended the war by destroy the city getting sacked.
2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6 (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to tell them who you are more clearly so they can look at the edits of your account and judge whether IP socking has taken place? It has. I'll give further evidence after you state who you are. Then the dialog with the admins will be more meaningful. I had my reasons for not making it a checkuser block or blocking your account. I did not place IP socking in the block log on purpose; it was not something created to move the goal posts on you but the thing is that the warnings and problems that belong to your IPs also belong to your account in my eyes and the effect is cumulative. You don't get to dodge scrutiny here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to User talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:EC32:3C1B:327B:6990. "Literally, as far as I can tell only I have posted on Talk:Suicide as an IP" Nope. You have used your account sometimes and sometimes as IPs. For you to get any kind of successful appeal, you will need to name your account and give consent to associate your IPs to that account...none of this is going to make sense to admins unless they understand the full situation. I'm not going to continue to debate with you about that because it is necessary if you are appealing to other non-checkuser admins. They aren't going to unblock you or have anything to base the remainder of this case on if they don't have the full picture. How could they?
I didn't block your account and I will allow you to post using it to WP:AN to challenge the IP blocks, provided that your consent is given to associate the account and IPs. Then the community will be able to review the situation fairly. They may judge whether there is IP socking among other things.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voice of Clam, I had already replied above. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, from what it sounds like, it is alleged that both your account, and IP made edits to the talkpage in question. Do you dispute this? If not - why edit the same page with both? SQLQuery me! 06:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2600:1700:8680:E900:DD27:F31A:E2AE:3EC6&oldid=877766100"