EverlastingGaze
Welcome edit
Hello, EverlastingGaze, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
October 2012 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
EverlastingGaze (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have not been abusing multiple accounts. I was editing as an unregistered IP, and then I decided to register on the site and edit with this user name. Since this account was created, editing with the IP has stopped. EverlastingGaze (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have closed this since you filed another request below. De728631 (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2012 (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.
- Thank you for acknowledging that you and the IP are the same person. However, right after registering your account, you continued an ongoing battle at White Terror (Russia), the article talk page, and various noticeboards without disclosing who you were.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- How does that qualify as "abusing multiple accounts"? Editing with the IP address stopped after the creation of the account. Can you explain why it was necessary for me to identify that the IP address belonged to me when you already had figured out that fact? Why hasn't cwmacdougall been restricted for edit-warring? EverlastingGaze (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
EverlastingGaze (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
How does that qualify as "abusing multiple accounts"? Editing with the IP address stopped after the creation of the account. Can you explain why it was necessary for me to identify that the IP address belonged to me when you already had figured out that fact? Why hasn't cwmacdougall been restricted for edit-warring? EverlastingGaze (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There's no need to do further confirmation: you were edit-warring as an IP address. You then created the userid and continued edit-warring - that's the veritable definition of abusing multiple accounts. During this very brief block, read up on WP:DR and WP:SOCK. Please remember in the future that unblock requests must focus only on your behaviour, not others, or they may be summarily declined (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:04, 24 October 2012 (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.
User 75.51.171.155 and NPOV edit
Please do not continue the discussion at WP:ANI. It has been moved to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, so please comment over there. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
EverlastingGaze (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There wasn't any edit-warring going on. There is no consensus to seek, as my lengthy posts in the Talk Page had been ignored, demonstrating that there isn't any serious dispute with the contents of the page. This block confirms that this site is a joke - I don't know why I am wasting my time here. EverlastingGaze (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
"Edit warring" means repeatedly reverting to your preferred version. The fact that you do not consider others' answers to your opinion on the matter a "serious dispute" does not alter that fact. Since you "don't know why [you are] wasting my time here", I don't see why you want to be unblocked anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2012 (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.
- EverlastingGaze was warned here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "White Terror". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Warning edit
- Only warning. Any more disruptive editing at White Terror (Russia) will be met with a long block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
November 2012 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
EverlastingGaze (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The user Bbb23 imposed what is an indefinite ban on my account over the White Terror article, which I believe is excessive and disproportionate. While in the past I do agree that I have been aggressive when it comes to reverting content, I don't think it applies in this case. In this edit, I added content that did not appear anywhere on the page[1]. He alleges that I have been edit-warring, though I have never broken the 3RR: my "edit-warring" in this case merely amounts to making an edit on an article after Bbb23 made threats to block me. I have engaged in lengthy discussions with users in order to establish a consensus[2] , so I am not here to vandalize and disrupt articles. In the previous few days, I have made many constructive, positive edits to articles that have not been met with any reversions [3]. While I am aware that edit-warring includes the 3RR, I did not know that my additions to the White Terror article such as here can be construed as edit-warring[[4]] If this is the case, then I apologize for my actions, and I will seek to edit in a more restrained manner in the future. EverlastingGaze (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Having first reviewed the links that you provided, and then the ones provided below, I wonder if you have ever even read the policy on edit-warring or even the definition of a revert? An edit-war can happen over months, not simply multiple reverts during the same day. Your edits were first reverted by WP:BRD. They did not gain sufficient WP:CONSENSUS later on. You have absolutely zero authority to re-add them again. Note a few minor technicalities: you are not banned, you are indefinitely blocked - "indefinitely" means "until the community is convinced that the behaviours that led to the block will not recur". As such, you'll need to read a few CORE policies, understand, PROVE understanding, and show us how these behaviours will never recur in the future. The recommended list are: WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DR, WP:REVERT, WP:DR. Take a minimum of 3 days to read, understand and formulate an appropriate unblock request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:56, 19 November 2012 (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.
On November 16, EG restored their version. After I reverted and warned them, they left the article alone for about a day and engaged in a discussion on the talk page. The discussion didn't result in a consensus; it was barely amicable. Unhappy that things do not go "their" way, EG then reinserted material in the article. They did not reinsert all of the material they had done on the 16th, but I did check the edits to confirm that they had at least reinserted some of that material. Based on their past behavior and my most recent warning, I imposed an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
EverlastingGaze (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have looked over WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DR, WP:REVERT, WP:DR, and I realize that my edits on the article were inappropriate. I now understand what edit warring and reverts are and how to build consensus. In particular, I understand that it is important to use the talk page to establish common ground with other editors so that edits acceptable to all sides can be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EverlastingGaze (talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No response to query below in four days. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2013 (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.
No comment, as yet, on the merits - but explain it for me. What went wrong last time? How do you plan to edit differently this time around? I am familiar with and can find the relevant policies, so you don't need to give me a standard "I will follow these policies..." answer. Just lay it out for me - how will you edit differently if unblocked, particularly if a similar situation arises? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
EverlastingGaze (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What went wrong last time was that there were disputes over the content of the White Terror (Russia) article. I disagreed with someone's edits, and I set about reverting his changes, and I was indefinitely blocked for this. I did not clearly understand Wikipedia's rules at the time, which require consensus building to take place at the talk page and in noticeboards. On that article, there was disregarding of other editors' concerns, and I understand now that I need to those concerns into consideration. There was community input and efforts at moderation, but I also disregarded those and went ahead with imposing my own perspectives, which I understand was incorrect to do. I also engaged browbeating to get some editors to accept my changes, which I think did not reflect good judgment on my part. So, I understand the need to be polite towards other editors, refrain from violating 3RR, and focus on building consensus on sensitive topics rather than imposing my own preferences.EverlastingGaze (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No response to queries below following more than sufficient time to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:22, 4 December 2013 (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.
- EverlastingGaze, if you are willing to avoid edit-warring completely (not just violating 3RR violations, but any edit-warring) I will unblock your account. This means that you will not revert when your contributions are contested and you will discuss your edits in a collegial and civil fashion on the relevant article talk page and pursue dispute resolution. Any violation of these terms would result in your account being reblocked. Do you agree to these terms?--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)