User talk:Thunderbird2/Harassment by Fnagaton and Greg L

It is resolved, as shown in the talk page archive. Your point of view is shown to be weak and you did not support it with any valid argument. "Resolved" does not mean "what Thunderbird2 wants". The problem was discussed openly and civily, you failed to answer questions and you then continued to use ad hominem against other editors, that is why you failed. Fnag aton 05:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird2, you know the case is closed and archived and since your edits to the main page were correctly reverted you then continue to edit the talk page [1] knowing full well it is archived. This is disruptive editing and you can be blocked for it, do not continue to edit this case page or the talk page. I have reverted your edits and so you are in no doubt there is now a talk archive template there as well. Fnag aton 04:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird2 stop misrepresenting the situation. I did not archive the RfC, that was done by this edit and you know the RfC has been closed and archived because the same link is given above by Quilbert. Obviously the RfC was closed and archived a long time before your latest attempt to edit it. You then edited the page to remove the talk archive template while giving a completely incorrect edit summary and despite earlier warnings given directly to you not to edit closed RfCs you continued to do so. Fnag aton 02:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about editing against consensus

Thunderbird2: These disruptive edits on computer-related articles, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8] constitute violations of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Refusal to 'get the point' says the following that you should read:

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point.
Wikipedia is based upon collaborative good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.
Note that it is the disruptive editing itself, not the mere holding of the opinion, that is the problem.

Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment where chaos would reign supreme if 1) editors didn’t follow the rules, and 2) there were no remedies for editors who refuse to follow the rules. Note also, the following from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing:

Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through requests for comment or similar means), further disruption should be liable to blocking at the administrators' noticeboard and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the dispute resolution process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either though the arbitration committee or by a consensus.

Consider yourself warned. If you continue to be disruptive, disciplinary action may follow. Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Greg L (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied here. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you adhere to the requirements of MOSNUM and treat other editors as you would have them treat you, then there is no problem. Greg L (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always treat other editors with respect, and to suggest otherwise is a bit rich coming from you. I do not wish to discuss your accusation further on my page. If you have anything further to say, please do so here. Thunderbird2 (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Thunderbird2 your changes are dispruptive. Please stop posting your version of events all over the place because your interpretation is not consistent with the evidence presented.Fnag aton 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

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 Binary prefix. 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.

EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2008 (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).

Thunderbird2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I confess I was not keeping track of my reverts, but I have gone back at the page history and can see only 3. (I don’t see this edit as a revert, becaue I wasn’t undoing anything, but attempting to identify common ground). If you look at the page, you will see that a discussion was taking place on the talk page during the period in question, and that my reverts were directed solely at trying to maintain a ^{[dubious – discuss]} tag around some disputed text. (the proof that the text was indeed disputed is on the talk page). While you are visiting the page, you will also see that User:Fnagaton made 4 reverts in a period of 24 hours and 12 minutes between 12:57 on 10 August and 13:09 on 11 August. Gamesmanship? I am not saying that excuses my reverts, but that I made only 3 of them

Decline reason:

Per the note from EdJohnston below there appears to be clearly four reverts, and possibly one non-revert. WP:3RR is not an entitlement to revert up to 3 times but an absolute limit that should not be crossed. In general the limit should never be approached—revert wars are harmful to the encyclopedia. You would do well to heed the line from Wikipedia:Edit war - "If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise, or seek dispute resolution. Don't just fight over competing views and versions". The place to identify common ground and seek consensus is on the talk page of the article - not on the article itself — Peripitus (Talk) 05:20, 12 August 2008 (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.

Comment by blocking admin

I invite reviewers of the block to check these five edits, all of which modify the article to defend Thunderbird2's position in the binary vs. decimal controversy. The third of these is the one he is questioning above. Though it continues to change the article to support his position in the dispute, it is arguable that it may not be a revert. Even if you discount that one, there are still four reverts in 24 hours, according to my calculation:

EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2008 (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).

Thunderbird2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

5 is not a revert because I was just flagging a piece of (previously existing) text as dubious; I did not see #4 as a revert when I made the edit, and I find it hard to see why it is interpreted as such now – I was simply rewording the text to make it more neutral – can you explain why you see it differently? the remaining 3 reverts (1-3) I do not dispute, but they are all good faith attempts to take the discussion to the talk page. And I repeat, the other editor involved made 4 clear reverts in 24 hours and 12 minutes; it seems inconsistent to make an issue of my reverts while not addressing his. If it helps, I will avoid editing the article itself, but I would like to put my side of the debate on the talk page, to counter the statements that are being made there. [ps: In an attempt to defuse the dispute, I was preparing this draft statement for the talk page. I would still like to finish preparing editing the draft and then add it.]

Decline reason:

Unless I'm mistaken, you've made the exact same edit 4 times. Since you are the one being reverted, I suppose you technically did not "revert more than 3 times", but this is still edit warring. I would suggest you address this in any further unblock requests. –xeno (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2008 (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.

I've replied to your comment at my talk page. –xeno (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Requesting a review of my decline of an unblock request. –xeno (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Thunderbird2 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Fnag aton 05:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NPA

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Note that you keep on repeating false accusations about other editors instead of tackling their arguments and that is ad hominem.

Do not edit cases after the case is closed.

Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L were made after the case has been closed. Do not edit case pages after the case has been closed. I have corrected the page by removing your edits and restoring it to the last correct version at the point when the case was closed. Do not make any futher changes to the page it has been archived to reflect the correct version at the time the case was closed. Fnag aton 08:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the subject of a RfC/U

As per normal procedures you may choose to comment if you wish. Fnag aton 15:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A warning to Thunderbird2 about repeated misrepresentation and personal attacks

Thunderbird2 this is another warning that you stop repeating misrepresentation and making personal attacks against me because when you do so it is unwarranted harassment. Fnag aton 11:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A warning to Thunderbird2 about repeated misrepresentation and personal attacks

Thunderbird2 this is another warning that you stop repeating misrepresentation and making personal attacks against me because when you do so it is unwarranted harassment. Fnag aton 11:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Headbomb and Fnagaton that this tendentious editing has to stop. WorkingBeaver (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]