Aviousours76
Hello Aviousours76. Thanks for your message. I would like to respond by saying that I don't feel at all comfortable with the way you are dealing with the issue of nationality on the JL page. Differences in opinion is always the reason for a spirited debate—and you made your opinion uncompromisingly clear—but to reach a consensus you need to flesh out the facts. So far all that we have read from you is that JL is English because of some of his song lyrics, and flags and songs at his recent stage appearances. This is flimsy at best by comparison with the fact that JL has an indisputably strong Irish background (and left his English shores a long time ago). You are trying to weaken these arguments by saying that they've been included by a rogue editor, or that my attempt at changing the nationality to the more inclusive "British" (which in common connotation encompasses the whole of the British Isles) has only so far got weak support. However, you're the only one changing it back, and I note that your account seems to serve the sole purpose to hack it out with other contributors over this issue. And in doing so you have repeatedly violated the TRR. So I'm sorry to say, but I don't see in you a credible and conscientious contributor who can really bring an open mind and objective opinion to the table. Should it occur that formerly invisible editors will soon also jump on this dispute and support your view, I'd now be very skeptical and probing of their identity—so if anything, with the way you've moved on this issue you've actually hurt your own case. In light of all this, I would like to ask you to follow TRR and stop reverting the entry, which at present has the approval of two contributors. Btw, I'm neither British nor Irish, so I believe that I have a comparatively fair and balanced view on this issue. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
July 2008
edit
3RR at John Lydon. Tendentious pushing of a single national POV across a range of articles, regarding British vs. English, English vs. Irish, etc. this appears to be a single-purpose account. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Aviousours76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Ed. I find it very unjust that I have been blocked as I am not the one POV pushing (Mallajaja or the other editor are POV pushing as all I am doing is protecting the existing article) nor am I the only use to break the 3RR rule. I set the account up after someone erroneously changed the birth place on the John Lydon article and I added a source on the talk page. If it is a single-purpose account it is only in that it was set up to look after the John Lydon account, the person vandalising the Lydon account then went on to make similar edits on other pages) If you actually look at the articles involved, all the descriptions were English (not of my making) prior to a vandal (know registered as Keynote1 but has been using the static IP "199.72.194.218" and a continues to use a host of dynamic IPs - most recent being 96.252.81.132... who should surely be blocked indefinitely after their editrs being described as disruptive by different editors) repeatedly inserting Irish ethnicity into the lead - they were reverted by numerous established editors numerous times. I have added a ref to the Morrissey article where they state that they are English (see edit history) and was about to add a similar one to the Lydon article (http://www.johnlydon.com/jl05.html). There is a general consensus to use English/Scottish/Welsh instead of British if such information is known (wiki any known British actor/musician) as it is more informative - there is no consensus to use British instead, nor did Malljaja reach any consensus on the John Lydon talk page. As far as I am aware the existing article in supposed to stay in place until a consensus has been reached. I would appreciate it if this issue could be sorted asap. Thanks.
Decline reason:
Upon review of the history of John Lydon, it seems clear that you've reverted more than three times within a 24 hour period, thus violating WP:3RR. Even if you're right, even if you have sources that show that you're right, you need to discuss on the talk page prior to reverting; if you are indeed correct, then others will concur, consensus will emerge, and the article will be improved. Continuing to edit war and revert the article during discussion is disruptive, as it can aggravate the conflict and make meaningful discussion impossible. Unfortunately, the actions of other users are not relevant to this matter. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:19, 28 July 2008 (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.
Aviousours76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Could you please actually give an exmaple of where I have reverted more than 3 times within a 24 hour period? I wasn't aware you could be blocked for one week for "merely" edit warring? Also, how can only one user be blocked for such a violation, yet 2 users not. The person who reported me is also involved in an edit war. If you look at the John Lydon talk page I have readily attempted to reach consensus - Malljaja hasn't. They have both (?) failed to repond to my latest comment. Malljaja posted a suggestion then changed the page without giving anyone chance to contest. How can I continue discussion if I cannot post? None of my edits have been described as disruptive - this block suggests that my edits are vandalism - this is simply not true. It appears that I haven't been blocked for 3RR, but supposed vandalism. I'm also interested in requesting a checkuser (see the JL talk page - the last time they posted, they accidently didn't log in and this has gone on to show them editing just as an IP editor, whose other edits appear to have been reverted by other uses also). At the end of the day, I am not here to be disruptive, merely to keep articles as accurate as possible and to revert vandalism.
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.
Aviousours76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block isn't even for 3RR though? Nor have I been "pushing a single national POV ". None of my edits have been vandalism, nor have I received any warning regarding 3RR or vandalism prior to being blocked. My edits have been in good faith, so I don't understand how a one week block is fair.
Decline reason:
The second edit to this talk page was a 3RR warning, about ten days ago. The duration is justified by tendentious editing and the POV pushing. As was stated by the blocking admin on the 3rr noticeboard, almost all of your article edits have been reversions. And the talk page protection that I'm about to implement is based on abuse of the unblock template.— chaser - t 22:13, 28 July 2008 (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.
From the block log and the blocking admin's comment, above, it appears that the block is itself for a violation of WP:3RR, and the duration was increased due to the perception of a POV Bias on your part, as well as the fact that you appeared to the blocking admin as a single-purpose account. My review of the block, and Jauerback's, focused on whether the violation of 3RR actually occured - which it did. In such cases, unless the duration is extreme (6 months for a first offense, for example), the duration of the block is left to the discretion of the blocking admin. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
editThis page was protected because you posted three unblock requests in rapid succession, which constitutes an abuse of the unblock template (as indicated on each of the declined requests). I've asked the protecting admin to consider unprotecting the page, so that you and I can discuss where your edits were problematic and how you can fix the problem; so, we'll see. In the meantime, I'm afraid you'll need to sit tight - you can't create accounts to go around the block, however benign your intentions. The 3RR block is justified, above, both because you reverted multiple times as indicated by Jauerback, and because you were indeed warned (here) about a possible violation of 3RR. Other users may be disruptive, and it's possible that they are using sockpuppets to that end - but, unfortunately, you'll need to wait for your block to expire before discussing that issue. Not much more to be done, here, I'm afraid. Before reverting again, on this or any other article, I'd recommend being absolutely clear on what the consensus is by discussing on the talk page. It's possible that other users disagree, as was the case here, and you absolutely cannot edit war, even if you're right. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Protection lifted per Ultrexactzz's thoughtful request.--chaser - t 19:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for the 3 unblock requests. I did not realise that that would constitute an abuse of the unblock template - I thought I had to use it to be able to post and receive any responce from admin.
Aviousours76 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Likewise I'm sorry for locking down your talk page. I didn't think of the possibility that you were trying to dialog. Anyway, I think Ultraexactzz at least is watchlisting your talk page. For future reference you can still email editors when your talk page is protected via the "email this user" link in the toolbox at bottom left of the window whenever you're at someone's user or user talk page.--chaser - t 20:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppet report
editSee Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Aviousours76. I doubt that his apparent use of sockpuppets (while blocked) will strengthen the case for unblocking this user. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ed - I haven't been using any sockpuppets to edit articles, therefore certainly not whilst banned. The user Malljaja who has opened the sockpuppet case has done so in response to me stating above, the day before that I intended to do a checkuser, as there are many single use IP accounts that have identical edits/reverts. Added to that, the user who then registered as User:Keynote1 [[5]] has revealed after posting on user/articles talk pages that they are responsible for a static IP address plus one of many dynamic addresses that have been commiting identical edits/reverts which have been repeatedly reverted by different editors. My edits haven't been described as vandalism or disruptive previously as I was only reverting to the previous good version (along with several other established editors). I now appreciate that I shouldn't have continued to edit war - I should have contacted an admin to protect the page and contacted other members for help. Malljaja is claiming this is a just about changing British to English, when this is not the case. The pages involved were of people who were already described as English. A user repeatedly kept inserting "Of Irish descent", then moved on to removing the English description then only recently changing the article to say British. Numerous editors have reverted these edits many times, and several of the address have received 3RR warnings [[6]] and [[7]] just 2 examples). Malljaja is stating that this account is single use account to change descriptions from British to English - my edit history shows this isn't the case. I have added a reference to the Morrissey article to backup the already existing English description and have a reference to backup the description on the John Lydon article (as detailed above). Aviousours76 (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- You might consider self-imposing what's called a "1RR" restriction on yourself, if only to prevent further problems in the future. Simply put, you would agree to a "1 Revert Rule" for articles, either in general or of a particular topic. You can revert once on these articles as a matter of course. However, instead of reverting twice more (to meet 3RR), you would agree to refrain from reverting a second time, in favor of discussion on the article's talk page. This would probably serve to keep you out of trouble, for lack of a better term, and it would have the added effect of removing any doubt about whether you reverted three times, whether the reverts were of vandalism or not, etc., as you would only have a single revert in the dispute. Any thoughts on this sort of restriction? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- To the allegation of being a single purpose account, there's a really easy way to counter that - pick something totally unrelated to what you've edited previously, and have at. You might check Category:Articles that need to be wikified for a simple way to pitch in, as an example. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions - I'll certainly take them on board. This may sound like hindsight, but I had intended to contact a number of editors who have been involved in similar cases (people changing nationality on articles relating to people from the UK) to try and reach some consensus before editing again. I was away for the weekend and when I came back to log in to Wikipedia I was unable to edit anything.
Aviousours76 (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- (ec to Ed)Nor do I advocate such an unblock - I'm hoping some discussion here and now will stave off worse problems down the line. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
As the user who reported this user for sock puppetry, I'd like just to keep the record straight for my motivation in doing so. First, I was encouraged by an admin, and second, I was compelled to do so after reviewing the history of the Peter Sellers page, where I had a similar run-in over nationality with an anon IP (e.g., here). The wandering IPs of the user making revert edits on this page all trace to the same provider as do the IPs recently used in the rv warring on the John Lydon page. The editor of the PS page also left a message on another editor's page here], and if you compare the style of this note (such as "It is indisputable that Peter Sellers is English - wouldn't you agree?") with ("I don't see how describing him as English is in any way biased - he IS English." left here), one cannot help but see very suspicious similarities in style and demeanour. And the user's assertion above that he/she simply reverted the articles to the last "good" version (again taking POV by implying that the edits by others running counter to it are "bad" ones) really underscores it. Taken together, I'd find it hard to imagine this is mere coincidence, but am inclined to believe that this user has a long-held agenda. Lastly, his/her comments often betray some advanced knowledge of Wikipedia, so I'd expect he/she has been around for some time—several of the pages this user had been reverting (such as here and here) are now eerily quiet. I suspect this user is now deftly worried about a possible checkuser inquiry, and probably as a result is sounding a lot more conciliatory here than he/she did during the disputes in question, in the hope of getting away with it. Malljaja (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Somewhat unsurprisingly this user has now been identified as having used sockpuppetry (see here). So given this, along with the user's varied responses to the current block and from earlier discussions (or lack thereof) with this user, I believe he/she faces a steep climb to convincingly apply lasting changes to conduct and cooperation. Malljaja (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)