User talk:Redmen44

March 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. D P 17:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Redmen44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked? Once I was warned I stopped and then discussed the issue on the talk pages. I thought the issue was resolved and I apologized for my actions and did not repeat them. I have made very valuable contributions to this site and have learned my lesson. This comes as a shock because I was warned about 3 days ago and I did not edit war again. Please understand that I am not trying to cause problems and when I was warned I stopped warring and discussed. I would like to continue to contribute to this great site so please let me continue to do that. Thank you Redmen44 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The last time you were blocked for edit warring, you requested an unblock and said "I have not reverted any of the updates since I was warned". Following that, you avoided another block for edit warring by saying at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring that you did not intend to edit war, and would instead discuss edits. After that, you edit warred again, were blocked, and requested an unblock, saying "Once I was warned I stopped and then discussed the issue on the talk pages". You don't get to keep on edit warring as often as you like provided that each time you are blocked or told that a block is likely you say you won't do it any more. Since neither warnings nor a short block has stopped you continually edit warring on several pages, a longer block is the one thing that may stand a chance of conveying the message "edit warring is unacceptable". Also, the statement "Once I was warned I stopped and then discussed the issue on the talk pages" misses the point. You have been told before that edit warring is unacceptable, have been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and have responded there, and you have even been blocked for edit warring, and appealed against the block, so you are clearly fully aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. You don't have to be told again that edit warring is unacceptable each time you start another edit war. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2014 (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.

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).

Redmen44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel that this block should not have been placed on my account. I was warned reference an article Josh Gasser that I had just created. I was warned Result:Not Blocked about edit warring because I was removing a BLP tag that I was confused on what that was. I stopped the warring and left the tag up while I looked for more reliable sources and discussed the topic on the talk pages. That issue seemed to be over but I was then blocked two days later for completely different situation on the Bo Ryan page. I was not edit warring as I was reverting edits by unconfirmed users as they were editing a part of the postseason record on the Bo Ryan page reference his current basketball season that has not ended yet. I have explained this below and you will see below there does seem to be some discrepancy about did I really do any wrong IN THIS CASE? There is now a discussion on the Bo Ryan talk page about edits that I was reverting and stating that I was not totally incorrect in making those edits. Please understand that I am not perfect and I have done things in the past that I am not proud of but this current block was NOT a case of edit warring in my opinion. Thank you for your time. Redmen44 (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

DangerousPanda did not warn you just about Josh Gasser. He warned you in the context of a report about Gasser. What he said was: "I'm convinced per statements above that such behaviour will never be repeated on Wikipedia." Anyone reading that would understand that you can't edit war anywhere, and yet after that warning you reverted multiple times at Bo Ryan. In the Gasser report, you said you "did not mean to start an edit war." Here, with respect to the Ryan reverts, you say, "I was not creating an edit war". You need to examine your conduct as a whole, not taken in isolated contributions to different articles. Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2014 (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.

If this was caused because of my edits to Bo Ryan's page that is totally unfair. People have edited Bo Ryan's page stating that his current season has ended at the Final Four when in fact the Wisconsin Badgers basketball season is not over yet so until then it should remain TBD like I have edited his page to be. There was no discussion that I was incorrect in doing that. It seems that Bagumba (talk) has some sort of "beef" with me and I do not know why? I respect Bagumba as a very valuable member to this community and only wish some day I can reach his status level. I explain why I reverted the edits on Bo Ryan's page and was never told that I was incorrect. The edits were from different IP address/non-confirmed users and I changed them with an explanation to explain why I did so. If I am warned like I was last week I stopped warring but in this case I reverted edits because I feel that they are correct because the season has not concluded yet and was never advised from Bagumba or anyone else that this was not acceptable. Instead Bagumba reports me to an admin and I get blocked with out warning? Can someone please help? I just want to contribute positively to this site without feeling bullied for making edits and then without warning get blocked. Thanks Redmen44 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba and DangerousPanda: I would like to write both of you to tell you tell you how sorry I am. As I stated above, I was not trying to cause problems on the Bo Ryan page. I was reverting because I thought that was the right thing to do and I was not told otherwise. Wikipedia is a big part of my life and with my condition I don't know how much longer I will have to contribute on this site. I have learned my lesson from my previous block and would like to contribute in more positive way to this site during the short amount of time that I have left. I really hope you both can see how sincere I truly am and therefore reinstate me please. With the time I have left, Bagumba, I really hope we can become Wikipedia friends and as I stated above I truly respect what you do for this site. I have nothing but true remorse here and I hope and pray you both (all) can see that. Thank you for your time. Redmen44 (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you are a sockpuppet of Carthage44, so be thankful that you've had ample opportunity to use this account as a WP:CLEANSTART, but have frankly failed. Considering the alternative of another indefinite block, 2 weeks here is fairly lenient. If nobody spends the time to reopen that sock case and this 2 weeks expires, I'd advise you count your blessings and make sure your behavior has absolutely nothing in common with your past. Aside from the edit warring, you are a dick in responding to others on your talk page, usually just deleting the request unexplained or leaving the occasional colorful comment like "Leave me alone and let me work" or "Removed nonsense from a confused user".—Bagumba (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how Bagumba can get away with trying to slander me as a person and a user. I put myself out to him and apologized for any wrong doing and hoped that someday we could become friends, yet he has the audacity to call me a dick? Really, this is accepted? Never once did I call him a name or try and belittle him. I asked for his forgiveness and he responds like that? I have opened my personal life up to him and this community and as a token of my inter anguish, I get demoralized for it by him. I can only hope there is some common decency still out there. And by the way, why does he keep referring to me as carthage44? Just because we have the number 44 is our user name? I have no idea where this is coming from. Redmen44 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're fully aware what edit warring is, and the sole situations where it's "acceptable". You've been blocked for it before, and the purpose of a block is to prevent it from happening again. You therefore didn't need to be told AGAIN that is was wrong. You were even pinged on my own talkpage to make you aware that this was an issue. Stop blaming others for your actions D P 19:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where in any of my statements of posts have I blamed someone else for my actions? I have ACCEPTED the blame and apologized for past edit wars. My current block that you have placed on me I feel is unwarranted as I have explained above. I was commenting on how Bagumba feels the need to slander me when all I did was apologize and complement him. All I want to do is get back to making useful contributions to Wikipedia that is why I have asked for an independent party to review my case. I just want a fair shake here and I have only been kind and heartfelt yet I still get called a dick by Bagumba yet his actions are justified? Thank you Redmen44 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slander is a legal term - you would need to be formally identifiable in order for slander to be valid. Beware that using such legal terms could cause for an indefinite block for WP:NLT. This block is 100% valid: you edit-warred, even though you know what edit-warring is, and have read the edit-warring policy that explains the sole exceptions. Stop talking about Bagumba, and focus on your own behaviour. You have yet to explain WHY you edit-warred even though you knew your edits were contrary to that policy, and, as per wP:GAB, you have failed to produce any "way forward" in the future that doesn't include edit-warring. Yes, it can be uncivil to call you a dick, but you're behaving a little bit like one in your interactions with others ... so you'll probably want to address that too D P 20:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read above as I have explained why I feel this block was unjust. I am waiting for an independent party to weight in because I am exhausted with all the name calling and bullying. Someone please help me here as I have explained myself in a apologetic and kind manner yet I continue to be disrespected. I have made mistakes in the past but have corrected them and I do not feel that anyone should be attacked like this. Thank you Redmen44 (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have NOT explained why you edit-warred, you simply described edit-warring to a T. By the way, I am independent ... although I won't review your block because I'm the blocking admin, I CAN remove the block if and when you actually make a wP:GAB-compliant request, which you have not done. Again, you KNOW what edit-warring is because you were blocked for it - you didn't need to be warned again. You also have a history of "playing nice for awhile" when this happens, then reverting back ... your contributions show it D P 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Redmen44: I'm not an admin here, but if you're waiting for an independent party to weigh in, I can tell you that by the way this is unfolding, you sound like you need a bit of a break from the wiki anyway. Sometimes when you get angry at other editors, or you get blocked for what you believe to be an unjust cause (although I can tell you the block was completely justified), the best thing to do is walk away for a while and regain your composure. That's essentially what edit warring blocks like these are for, along with protecting the article from further harm. So please, just take the rest of your two weeks and relax away from the wiki. T C N7JM 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and your opinions on this matter. I am not angry at any users I was just angry at the fact that I have been polite and remorseful yet I am the one being called a dick which I feel was unjust. If the case of my block for the Bo Ryan edits, yes I feel the unblock was unjust and I was not edit warring as unconfirmed users were editing his page incorrectly as they might not have known that the season is not over yet, that's all no harm. The Wisconsin Badgers basketball season is not over so therefore his current season is still ongoing and should not be edited until the season has completed. I do not claim to be an expert on all the rules of Wikipedia but I do try to obey at the best of my ability. I know what edit warring is and in the past I have been guilty of that, I admit that, but in this case I was reverting because the season has not ended and until then the page should reflect that. I do not wish to be a problem on this site and I only hope to contribute in a positive manner. This site helps me on a daily basis and I wish I could convey that to all of you. I am truly sorry to all and everyone if I have wasted your time. I never meant for that. My only plea is that maybe someone is willing to give me a chance to prove myself now and remove my block or at least shorten it, please. Taking me away from this site hurts me more than you know. Thank you for your time and stay well. Redmen44 (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to criticize the blocking admin, but I do feel that if the block is for the Bo Ryan reverts, two weeks is rather harsh, although I realize that prior history was probably taken into account. Northern Antarctica (₵) 15:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northern Antarctica: Thank you for your input and seeing my point of view as that is the reason I am currently blocked for the Bo Ryan edits that were in no way trying to invoke a edit war. What do you suggest I do? I see that a discussion has started about this topic on the Bo Ryan talk page and I would like to be a part of that. Instead, I have been blocked for something that was never discussed until now. Please, if there is anything you can do to help my situation it would be greatly appreciated. Redmen44 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Antarctica, Redmen's prior history was taken into account with this block. Just like all cases of blocking, if a block is made once, but the issue persists after the user continues editing, a second or third block for the same issue is always longer. Redmen, this block is not going to be lifted. I'd recommend following TCN7JM's advice and taking the two weeks away from Wiki and then come back and prove you've learned your lesson. Gloss • talk 16:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am stating my case as I feel this block was unjust. I am not trying to cause problems with anyone but my past is my past. I was warned reference a totally different situation a few days ago and I let it be. This block is for a different situation that I feel (and other users might feel the same way) was not a case of edit warring. I have expressed my feelings and please don't judge me from my past. I just want to be a valuable member of this community and this block was, IMO, not totally fair. Thank you and good day. Redmen44 (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get warned per situation. You edit warred a couple of weeks ago, were warned, and got blocked. That block was SUPPOSED to prevent you from ever edit-warring again. You don't get warned again, so when you DID edit-war more recently, it requires no warning, you get re-blocked. Because you had been blocked for edit-warring in the past, the block length was escalated as per standard procedures. Just note: in the future, there will ALSO be no warnings, as there's no need for them - especially after two blocks for the exact same reason - and the future block will be even longer. You're supposed to learn the lesson the first time and not repeat; that's the intent of blocks D P 19:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is I feel this was not a case of edit warring and I am not the only one that feels that way. That is why I have been trying to resolve this situation and get back to editing. Thanks for your time. Redmen44 (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong; everybody agrees it was edit-warring. Nobody has said otherwise. Some people think 2 weeks was too long, but they don't understand the progressive nature of blocks - especially when so close to your block for the same infraction. D P 20:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion but I disagree that this is a separate matter. I was not edit warring when it came to the Bo Ryan page that is why I am asking to please remove this block or at the very least reduce it. Thank you Redmen44 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotta be fricking kidding me?!??!?!?!?

(del/undel) 15:20, March 30, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Bo Ryan ‎ (Undid revision 601955009 by CB2199 (talk))
(del/undel) 15:20, March 30, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-7)‎ . . Bo Ryan ‎ (Undid revision 601955077 by CB2199 (talk))
(del/undel) 15:20, March 30, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-5)‎ . . Bo Ryan ‎ (Undid revision 601955132 by CB2199 (talk) season is not over)
(del/undel) 15:19, March 30, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . Bo Ryan ‎ (Undid revision 601958008 by CMCole5 (talk))

That is edit-warring. Are you aware that you can also be edit-warring after only one edit?? Have you read WP:EW at all? D P 20:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read it and I have not violated it. I do not know how to revert multiple edits and therefore that is why I reverted those at separate times (once again I am not well versed on all Wikipedia's ins and outs). Once again, I was not edit warring as it was the only revert and I explained why. If you go to Bo Ryan's page history you will see I am not the only on to revert an edit and comment the reason as the season is over. Why is that other user(s) that just reverted today not blocked? Also, there is a discussion going on at the Bo Ryan talk page to see if what I was revert is correct or not. I should be able to discuss that not just be blocked for a what I feel is a justified revert. Please understand that this I was not creating an edit war, just trying to advise editors who might not be aware that the Badgers basketball season is not over yet. Also, if as you state edit warring can be after one edit? Then why is 90% of Wikipedia not blocked? I just would like to continue to edit in a useful and meaningful way so please remove this edit. I am very remorseful and just would like to show everyone how serious I am. I respect you taking the time to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia to me and hope that we can someday work together. Thank you very much. Redmen44 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redmen44, I'm in agreement with you that this block is probably too harsh, even with your past history taken into account, but I would definitely advise you to avoid edit–warring at all costs in the future. Instead of reverting, take it to the article talk page and seek assistance from veteran editors who are familiar with the topic. Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with you Northern and thank you for your help. I hope that I can get back to editing as soon as possible so people can see that I have changed. Thanks again! Redmen44 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So in a clear case of edit warring, in which you received a block, your argument for being unblocked is that you didn't edit war? Good luck with that. Flat Out let's discuss it 20:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be rude, I have stated before that I feel that my revert on the Bo Ryan's page was not an edit war but a reflection that the season has not ended so the page should reflect that. I have a right to speak out about how I feel on the subject. If you feel the need to make rude comments please do not do so on my talk page. Thank you Redmen44 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This just shows that you have no idea what you did and should stay blocked. Everybody who edit wars thinks what they're doing is correct, but whether or not it is is completely irrelevant. If you make more than three reverts to the page within the span of 24 hours, you've edit warred; you've broken 3RR and can be blocked. T C N7JM 22:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it's me against the Wikipedia world and I lost. No one is willing to hear my side of it so please leave my talk page be. Thank you for all of your input. Redmen44 (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redmen, reading your various messages on this page, I see that you evidently sincerely do not think that you were edit warring, and it seems that you don't understand why other people think you were. It looks to me as though that is because of a couple of misunderstandings. I will see if I can manage to explain those misunderstandings, in the hope that it may help you to avoid getting into the same situation again.

Firstly, you evidently think that repeatedly reverting does not count as edit warring if other editors were mistaken in what they did, and you were putting things right. This is clear from several things you say, but perhaps most clearly expressed in the passage where you wrote "I was not edit warring as unconfirmed users were editing his page incorrectly ... I was reverting because the season has not ended and until then the page should reflect that". However, "edit warring" means "repeatedly reverting", not "repeatedly reverting where your reverts are wrong". Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is (basically) "don't edit war" not "don't edit war unless yur edits are right". In fact, if we changed the edit warring policy to make an exception for editors who are convinced that they are right, then the whole policy would become conmpletely meaningless, since in almost all edit wars everyone involved is convinced that they are right.

Secondly, you say "I do not know how to revert multiple edits and therefore that is why I reverted those at separate times". However, the issue of whther you reverted multiple edits in one step or in a string of separate edits is irrelevant, because even if we count a group of successive edits as one edit, you were still edit warring. In the following list of edits, each time that you made a sequence of successive edits, I have counted them as one. Also, to keep things simple, I have just considered one particular change, namely replacing the text "NCAA Final Four" with "TBD" in the text "| postseason = [[2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament|NCAA Final Four]]". Here are five separate occasions when you did that: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. There are other things which you reverted too, but even if we consider only that one change, you were clearly repeating the same change over and over again: that is what "edit warring" means.

I hope that helps you to understand why everybody else who has commented on the issue believes that you were edit warring, and if so, it should help you to avoid making the same mistake again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional block

I've blocked you for two additional weeks for evading your block with User:50.77.171.74.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Redmen44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What??? I haven't been on this site for 4 days and now I see that I have been blocked indefinitely? I stay away from the site and people still want to block me longer? What do I have to do? Please, I have obeyed my block and not even been on the site yet this admin blocks me for something I DID NOT DO! I was waiting until my block was up before I could continue to make valuable contributions to this site and now this? Please help thank you Redmen44 (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Don't play games with me, Your Highness. Your block has been raised to indef not because of anything you did when you weren't doing anything, but because of what you had done that we hadn't discovered yet: You are a member of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor ... no, wait, actually, you're just a sockpuppet of Carthage44. Which is probably worse. You can read all about why we think so here. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2014 (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.