The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring borderline copyvio and promotional material. You should know better by now, after everything. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
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).
The material is in fact not a copyright violation - the topic was discussed on the talk page. Two other uninvolved editors put the quote back in the article - so to say I am responsible is incorrect. Apparently more editors feel that the material is is not copyright violation. I came to you in order to stop any edit warring from occurring. I asked for the page protection - and the answer was to block me. User:Lightburst 15:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
You were in fact edit-warring. You were in fact adding promotional material to the article. You demonstrated an aggressive battleground mentality, which you still demonstrate in your comments post-block, indicating no insight into your misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2019 (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.
Reverted by SportingFlyer (Removed good faith edit by User:Lightburst - blockquote is potential copyright violation, and we don't typically include block quotes from the person being discussed in an academic encyclopaedia article)
Reverted by User:Lightburst (Thank you for your concern. the block-quote is properly referenced and appropriate)
Reverted by User:Lightburst (No consensus to remove properly attributed blockquote from notes. See the talk page for discussion)
Reverted by me (To last version (9:08, 27 June 2019 ) without the borderline copyvio and promotional content, but also before the various tags were added — tags which were not accompanied with a talk page note (no drive-by tagging, please)) El_C 16:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Comments: It is WP policy that reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Two other uninvolved editors put the quote back in the article - so for the administrator to say that I am responsible for edit warring is incorrect. Apparently several editors feel that the material is is not copyright violation. I came to El C in order to stop any edit warring from occurring.
Sequence of reverts related to the block-quote on the article Christopher Kaelin
It is clear that the article was in need of protection based on all the involved editors. Which is why I came to El C. Blocking me seems like a drastic move when my goal was to stop the edit warring. User:Lightburst 16:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Your sequence of event omits Calton's revert, whereas mine shows all the reverts. Anyway, you came to me in the midst of the edit war, when your version was up at the time. As for your claims of vandalism, I reject that — see also WP:NOTVAND. The point is that you've been warned about skirting the copyvio line multiple times now, but I see no evidence you've learned anything. El_C 16:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
El_CI guess you are making my point, so many people edit warring that I could hardly keep track of them. In any event - the quote is not a copyright violation. It is a properly quoted and referenced block-quote. Many editors were involved in this, and page protection was requested. Protection seems like the easiest path to getting back to WP business. If you feel it is copyright violation you can step in and delete unilaterally as you did when you reverted me and allowed Tryptofish to install his additions in the code of conduct of the ARS. There was an edit war regarding the code of conduct involving multiple editors (just like this situation) and you squashed it by siding with Tryptofish. You could have done the same here User:Lightburst 16:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Your ARS revert, again on the basis that it was vandalism (which it clearly was not), came over a year after the last revert. You basically restarted the edit war, with basically no concrete explanation as to why you were doing it. El_C 17:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
There was a year long edit war. Multiple editors with Tryptofish forcing the material in starting it in March 2018 saying This is important. You came in at the end. there was not consensus User:Lightburst 17:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
No, that's not correct. The edit war lasted for 3 days (between 12 and 15 March 2018). What there was, as mentioned, was a time span of over a year between the last revert (15 March 2018) and your latest revert a week ago (21 June 2019). El_C 17:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
The record is clear. It also appears that you sided with Tryptofish against the multiple other editors who had removed the content over that year. Tryptofish kept re-installing against consensus. From your communication with Tryptofish on this issue it appears that you are friends with Tryptofish. In any event - The ARS had no choice but to allow your edit, the same as I have no choice because you are an administrator. It was my mistake coming to you for assistance. User:Lightburst 17:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I know Tryptofish from having sanctioned them on Arbitration enforcement and we are not friends. Your line of argument is questionable, to say the least. You are actually lucky you came to me, because a less lenient admin might have indeffed you, at this point. El_C 17:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) Based on your comments, some of which are not-so-veiled personal attacks against El_C, I have revoked your access to this page. I strongly urge you to reconsider your approach to editing at Wikipedia when this block expires, or you may find yourself blocked for a much longer time, up to and including indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Hey, User:Lightburst! You haven't asked for advice, so ignore me if you prefer. This is a very short block. You can do it standing on your head. El C is being very patient and kind, and clearly is just trying to help you figure out why the original edit was a problem. Use the time to read over policy so you're on firm ground, then come back tomorrow and start a discussion at the talk page. Hope this isn't unwelcome; apologies if it is. --valereee (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Whoops, edit conflict. Sorry for posting after you'd lost the ability to respond. Best wishes. --valereee (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
User:Lightburst, if your edit is reverted, you must go to discuss the issue on the article talk page, no matter how right you think you are. You were edit warring, even if the material is valid (and I'm not sure that it was). Any admin you approached would have told you to go discuss the edit on the talk page BEFORE insisting on adding your edit, not after. A dispute over content is not vandalism which is intentionally damaging an article. Valereee is correct, this is a short block for edit-warring. I hope you choose a different edit tactic when you return. LizRead!Talk! 23:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
valereeeLiz and User:Bbb23, User:Lightburst was not edit warring. Other editors (including me) had put it back. There was neither an edit war nor a copyright violation. And there was a pending discussion on the article's talk page concerning the edits. All facts that should have been considered. This all was an overblown, inordinate, and unwarranted response to something that did not happen. It was clearly erroneous, and based upon a misapprehension of material facts. It was on its face a violation of the WP:Block guidelineWP:Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users, who are acting in good faith. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sure, 7&6=thirteen, whatever you say. El_C 02:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
