|
Do you have legal experience? Sounds like you might. SpecialKCL66 20:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am a bot...
Ok no, but I am on a program called Igloo which allows me to revert edits within a tenth of a second after. What you did, refactoring another's comments, is a big no no in Wikipedia.--Talktome(Intelati) 23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:James-OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you an admin? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
((unblock|Your reason here))
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Looie496 (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)SpecialKCL66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Blocking admin says I violated 3RR rule after I filed a 3RR complaint against someone else. I did not, and I cannot imagine how I could have done things more by the book. I would like for someone to explain how I could have proceeded any better if I am going to remain blocked
Decline reason:
Looking at your contributions here, you made something like ten reverts to the same article in the space of a few hours. That is textbook edit warring. It does not matter whether the content you reverted was the same in all or any of these instances. Because all are judged by the merits of their own edits only, what the other editor did or what you said to them is not relevant for the purposes of your block. Sandstein 07:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
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.
Sandstein, please look at that more carefully and note the actual Edit Warring page which states: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." If you look again you will see it consists of only 3 reverts in response to another user's edits of the exact same material.
SpecialKCL66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
with all due respect to admin Sandstein, I do not believe he examined this very carefully at all as the 3RR rule on this is quite clear, and he accused me of 10 reverts, when there were only three regarding the disputed issue. If I am going to be blocked for 48 hours, all I am asking is that somebody take more than a cursory glance at the facts here and make more than a whimsical decision. And again, if I am going to be blocked, can someone please give me an explanation of how I could have dealt with Xenophrenic's edit warring in a way that would not have hit me with a 48 hour ban?? I've read all the rules, and when I was confronted with someone edit warring, I followed them as best I could, and somehow I STILL got reemed with a 48 hour ban. If I didn't handle it the right way, where did I go wrong? Thanks.
Decline reason:
I have rarely seen such a clear case of edit-warring, and of an editor who blames others for their action. We have a Be bold, revert, discuss cycle - that's how obtain consensus. This is a mere 48hr WP:BLOCK, and not yet a WP:BAN. During that time, I recommend understanding the policies I have linked to, PLUS the ones that have been at the top of your talkpage for some time now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
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.
AGAIN: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#The_three-revert_rule
SpecialKCL66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason for my unblock request is still extremely simple. I was accused by the blocking admin of a 3RR violation. It is simply FALSE that I reverted 4 times. If it were true, why can't anybody show me the 4 reverts? Because it did not occur. 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392353070&oldid=392349077 2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392359499&oldid=392358613 3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392361130&oldid=392360772. There was no number 4. Period. There certainly were not "ten."
Decline reason:
I'm not sure why you've labeled your edit at 7:30 as "restore" as opposed to "reverted the immediately preceding edit by an editor you are at odds with". This does seem clear; if you are still confused about our edit warring policy, I see no reason to believe an unblock would help. Kuru (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
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'm guilty of 3RR? Can you show me which 4 reverts all reverted the same text, or anything close? I mean really?? I'm doing everything I can conceivably do to cooperate and work effectively on the issues I work on. On top of that, contrary to what you said on the edit warring page, I did warn the user that he was approaching edit warring. Twice. Please look at the talk page. What more could I have possibly done? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Looie496, can you talk with me about this over here? I mean this is really surreal to me. You acknowledge that Xenophrenic was guilty of 3RR, but he gets nothing? Even without the 3RR violation, his intent was clearly to edit war, if you follow the matter chronologically (I know that it's not really how adminst want to spend their time, understandibly). First of all, I DID warn him -twice - on the talk page, that he was approaching edit warring. On top of that, according to WP:3RR, as I'm sure you know, a warning is in no way required. Moreover Xenophrenic is a very experience user. He knew exactly what he was doing.
Meanwhile, I'm pretty darn sure I did not violate 3RR. The entire reason that I felt forced to file the complaint in the first place was because I knew if I reverted the disputed portion again (which Xenophrenic had just done), I would have violated 3RR. The Edit Warring rules told me not to edit war, even if someone else does, but to file a complaint and seek resolution instead. That is what I did, and I was trying to do things by the book every step of the way. Now I find out that somehow I get nailed, and the guy who actually did violate 3RR doesn't? Please look at the chronology of the talk page and the actual edits. You will see that every step of the way, I have tried to work cooperatively with someone who had no interest in either consensus or legitimate discussion. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd just outline the timeline here for admin's convenience, including notable Talk Page edits. Also Looie496, would you please note where I warned Xenophrenic twice, in addition to the warning posted on his page, even though the Edit Warring rules state:
"A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a XXX template message on their user talk page."
Though admin Looie496 acknowledged Xenophrenic was edit warring and guilty of a 3RR violation, he let him off because supposedly he was not warned. Not only were 3 warnings issue, but the warnings were ACKNOWLEDGED by Xenophrenic. Meanwhile, I'm still quite sure I DID NOT revert the same thing 4 times, and I DID NOT get any warnings, but I got nailed with a 48 hour block? How is there such a whopping double standard???
I'm BEGGING someone PLEASE just look at the facts.
4:50-4:54 – Xenophrenic makes 1st disputed edits regarding already controversial issue http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392349077&oldid=392295653
5:21-5:24 – SpecialKCL66 objects/reverts, requests discussion on talk page, offers to redo the minor, non-controversial edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392353070&oldid=392349077
5:26 – Talk Page: Xenophrenic says his intent is to make things more concise http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392353340&oldid=392047172
5:39-6:20 – Xenophrenic re-imposes edits for 2nd time, suggests if I don’t like it, he may revert several days worth of non-controversial edits though he has specified no objection to any of them http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392358613&oldid=392353070
6:20 – Talk Page: SpecialKCL66 wonders how Xenophrenic’s intent is to make things more concise if he’s making it considerably longer. Also mentions weight issue with edits, as well as longstanding controversy on this page regarding the words “heavily edited” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392358600&oldid=392356001
6:28-6:30 – SpecialKCL66 again reverts, 2nd time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392359499&oldid=392358613
6:34-6:43 – Xenophrenic reinstates edits for 3rd timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392360772&oldid=392359499
6:43 – Talk Page: SpecialKCL66 notices and objects that Xenophrenic has been continually reverting his edits instead of waiting for some consensus on Talk Page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392360791&oldid=392360468
6:45-6:47 – SpecialKCL66 again reverts, 3rd timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392361130&oldid=392360772
6:47 – Xenophrenic undoes several days worth of edits, none of which he has suggested any objection over, almost all of which is minor edits, reference consolidation, grammar, sentence structure, etc., though there was a significant amount scattered in various parts of the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392361174&oldid=392361130
7:06 – Talk Page: SpecialKCL66 objects to Xenophrenic’s previously articulated strategy of eliminating several days worth of non-controversial progress completely un-related to disputed issue if he doesn’t get his way. SpecialKCL66 warns he may be Edit Warring for the 1st time. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392363022&oldid=392361316
7:17 – Xenophrenic responds with heavy sarcasm and mimickry
7:21 – SpecialKCL66 notes intention to restore the several days worth of work and warns Xenophrenic about Edit Warring for the 2nd time. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392364440&oldid=392364141
7:27 – Xenophrenic Acknowledges Edit Warring warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392365052&oldid=392364440
7:30 – SpecialKCL66 restores the several days worth of minor edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392365343&oldid=392361174
7:45 – SpecialKCL66 again requests discussion of issues on talk page before making heavily disputed edits, goes to sleep http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&curid=24468315&diff=392366784&oldid=392365052
7:39-8:40 – Xenophrenic again edits disputed section and disputed issue, 4th timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=392371814&oldid=392365343
This is the point at which I held off on making any other reverts or else I would also have been guilty of 3RR violation, just like Xenophrenic, but somehow I get nailed for a 3RR violation anyway and Xenophrenic does not?? I just don't see how I can win here!
Hi, just a friendly note that it is perhaps best suited to confine your conversations regarding your block to this page. The multiple notes you left on multiple admins' talk pages may seem like forum shopping or "ask the other parent". Creating that appearance is unlikely to help your chances of being unblocked - and may actually hurt your chances or make other re-evaluate your block length. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 22:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? I'm already unblocked. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for the consideration. Cheers. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, SpecialKCL66. Please review the WP:NPA policy. I am requesting that you remove or refactor the personal attacks you made against me in this edit, and refrain from similar violations in the future. Thank you, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your question at Magog's talk page. You used the format: <ref name = “hot seat”/> You must convert all to the format: <ref name="hot seat"/>, i.e. no spaces and the quotes should not look slanted in the edit mode. That should fix the problem. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
For a new editor, you're very familiar with Wiki protocols. Is this account a WP:Clean start account? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)A file that you uploaded, File:James-OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf, has been listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion because it is not an image, sound or video file and does not appear to have any encyclopedic use. See section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you feel that this file has a use in the encyclopedia, please place the ((hangon)) tag on File:James-OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf, then go to its talk page (by clicking Discussion at the top of that page) and insert an explanation of how the file is useful to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)