Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:52, 10 June 2015

December 2012

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.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Intoronto1125 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edits were to revert obvious vandalism (large removal of content). Off course Qwyrxian did not see it like that and I apologize for that. I strongly believe my edits did no constitute edit warring, if they did I apologize. It won't happen again if I was told clear handily that I was edit warring, which I was not informed off.Intoronto1125TalkContributions 18:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

With your extensive history of edit warring and being blocked for it, you should know very clearly that only reverts of simple and uncontroversial vandalism are exempt from 3RR. So either you're unable to understand the policy or you're just looking for justifications to continue pushing your preferred version. Either way, some time it has to be stopped. Max Semenik (talk) 20:23, 31 December 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.

I wasn't aware of that at all. I am able to understand the policy now because you bought it up. There was no discussion brought up at all about the insert of the material onto the article. Not by the blocking admin or the other editor. If that were the case I would have commented like I have done in other cases. My goal here is not to edit-war but to help build an encyclopedia.Intoronto1125TalkContributions 20:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If, after being blocked numerous times for violating a policy, you didn't bother to read it, you shouldn't ever be allowed to edit again due to the lack of WP:COMPETENCE. Max Semenik (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Because I never read or did not clearly see that specific part of policy does not mean I should be blocked permanently. I have been apologetic to the misunderstanding and promise for the edit warring on the article in question to cease.Intoronto1125TalkContributions 23:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Intoronto1125 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See above statement in response to MaxSem.

Decline reason:

See above response by MaxSem. — Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 31 December 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.

Intoronto1125TalkContributions 20:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

So how many more blocks will it take until you do understand the edit warring policy? Not counting this block, you've been blocked five times for edit warring, and indefinitely three times for various reasons. Sorry, I'm not convinced, but I'll leave this for others to comment. Hersfold 21:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is I never violated 3RR nor is it explicitly listed under the edit warring page that. "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking" which is something I felt was the case.Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You didn't need to be warned again. Toddst1 said when he unblocked you the last time: "I have unblocked this account, logging that it may be re-blocked without warning for further edit wars." You were edit warring again and no warning was necessary. You can edit war without breaking the tree revert rule. With your history you should have limited yourself to one revert. GB fan 01:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't notice that tidbit. Where ever it was I didn't see it. Off course I know that but not knowing reverting vandalism (imo) constituted edit warring. I don't think my time here should end due to a misunderstanding and my failure to discuss an edit. I have been apologetic from the second I saw the block notice.Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Glancing at Talk:Sri Lanka shows that there had been discussions around this content since the 2nd of December, which you have been involved in. As someone who seems to spend an awful lot of time asking admins to reverse blocks on editors, I have to say I find some of your protestations unconvincing.

You are however not blocked permanently, but indefinitely. If you wish to resume editing then you have to actually acknowledge that not only were you edit warring, and clearly so, but that you were not "reverting vandalism" - you were restoring content you had added. The key thing to understand is WP:BRD - Bold, revert, discuss. You boldly added some content, another user removed it - you need then to discuss on the talk page. Very clearly if we simply reverted each other we would be doing it all day and all night with no net improvement in the encyclopaedia.

It might seem impossible that you can reach a consensus about this particular issue, however that is certain is that if you don't try.

I think the fact that you are apologetic is a good start, but I hope that if you see the sense of what I said above, and are willing to try discussion rather than edit warring (which, by the way, doesn't work) and can express it in a believable way, you may find an admin willing to give you a "final final chance". Rich Farmbrough, 04:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

I wasn't aware of the edit warring but since it has been brought to my attention earlier I fully understand what led to it and why I was blocked. Also although I was restoring everything that I had originally put in, the revert also includes the other side of the story. Thus when I reverted it was not to just fully restore what I had put in, but also the other side of the news article. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 04:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that that is correct, however my experience with these matters is that keeping the appeal simple, ticking the boxes (and meaning it) is best. If your unblock request has the word "but" in it it is more likely to fail. Have a happy new year.

I fully accept everything, I am not denying anything. All I am saying is it could have been brought to my attention before action was taken. I am human and make mistakes and blocking with warning means no mistakes. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 05:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been away from WP since around the time of the block, so I'm following up now the comments above and on an email Intoronto sent me. Given the comments above, I have to say that I think that the "final final chance" has already passed. As pointed out above, Intotornto1125 has been indefinitely blocked 3 times, and the last time the blocking admin already made it clear that any further edit warring would result in another indefinite block. Two points that Intoronto raises actually further support the need for such a block here in my opinion:

1. Intoronto says that he thinks that either thinks that this should have been or wishes this had been brought to his attention prior to a block. The problem is, it has been brought to his attention before, in the form of numerous warnings and blocks. Edit warring is not a "mistake"; it is a deliberate act of attempt to force an article to be a certain way by reverting to the preferred version without discussion. It is simply unreasonable to expect that the community must give an infinite amount of patience, and that every time Intoronto edit wars we have to "warn" her/him before blocking. It simply an unfair reversal; essentially Intoronto is asking to be able to continue to be able to violate the rules (not make mistake, but deliberately and intentionally edit war) and every single time expect some one to tell her/him, "You need to stop that."
2. Above, Intoronto says that s/he thought s/he was just reverting vandalism. That either shows a massive level of incompetence or is, more likely, just a desperate attempt to avoid final sanctions. There is no way a reasonable editor could have thought that the removal was vandalism, given that it had been the subject of a previous edit war, with content-based reasons for inclusion or exclusion, and that had caused me to fully protect the article. Intoronto knows this, because spent time arguing that I was too involved to protect the article (and/or that I shouldn't have reverted to the pre-dispute version prior to protecting). Never once, however, did s/he attempt to actually discuss the content. Calling a blatantly obvious content dispute vandalism either means that Intoronto simply doesn't understand collaborative editing, or is just saying the thing they thing will get them unblocked.

Thus, I cannot see any way for a return for Intotoronto to editing at this time. WP:OFFER, of course, remains open; in Intoronto's case, I really think we'd need to see a major turn around to accept such an offer, but it's possible. As for the issue collapsed below, I will attend to it in the proper forum if/when it's brought up there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been indef. blocked once for edit warring not three times. I will address the two points you bring up:

1) Edit warring is editing the page to the version I originally added and prefer. Am I correct or not? On the Sri Lanka page my reverts were to a revision that included my edit + criticism of the information I added. So really its not a "deliberate act of attempt to force an article to be a certain way by reverting to the preferred version". Rather its the reverting of an edit which removed a sizeable amount of information and its criticism, part of which I never included. Secondly, you protected the page a week ago, and did not start a discussion and allowed the situation to spiral out of control. That to me shows complete administrative incompetence. Yes I admit I failed by not discussing the edit too and apologize for that.

2) I honestly believe I was reverting to vandalism. Removal of large chunks of information that was sourced and had a counter point to it shouldn't be blanked on a page. I am not here to edit war I have learnt my lesson from previous blocks. A clear example would be earlier last month on the The Amazing Race 21 article. I started a discussion over an editing dispute. I believed that it was leading down to the road of edit warring and thus discussed the edit instead of keep reverting. I am hear to build an encyclopedia, not to edit war. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

First, starting a discussion was not my responsibility--I have no interest in the content dispute itself, nor can I even intervene in it if I wanted, otherwise then I would be involved. Nonetheless, I actually did attempt to start a discussion on behalf of all participants by summarizing the edit summaries that had been used during the edit war: see Talk:Sri Lanka#Including the disputed claims?. That you did not see that implies to me that you didn't even look at the talk page before reverting again a few days ago. And the fact that you still think this is vandalism is again evidence that you can't be allowed to edit, since your understanding of both WP:VANDAL and WP:EW is so lacking that it seems almost certain that you will make the same error again. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When you think some content is contentious itself you are involved;because you are influenced by one of the parties in conflict. Every other content in the Conflict like Sri Lanka is disputed all over the world but they are supported simply by WP:RS and not by consensus always on Misplaced Pages.Sudar123 (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You're misreading my words again. I'm saying it's contentious because people were contending. There was an edit war. There were specific reasons raised for and against inclusion. Simply because something is sourced does not mean it automatically belongs in a Misplaced Pages article; verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. I don't understand why you don't listen to me: I don't care if the info is in the article. Whatever you decide, via a discussion on the talk page, is fine by me. Look, I would be hard pressed even to find Sri Lanka on a map, much less care anything about it's history. I care about Misplaced Pages's rules, about consensus building, not edit warring, etc. If you would stop wasting time with this and started talking on the article talk page about why the information should be included/excluded maybe you could actually get somewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It may be so that you found it difficult to locate where the Sri Lanka is on a map. But subsequently you are trying to be a biased Gate Keeper. And on the current issue where Intoronto is blocked you acted as a Judge and a Jury concurrently on the situation and the individuals(Intoronto) involved. That is why we need a RfC not only for the remedy for Intoronto's Indefblock but your involvement as an Admin in future on Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles.Sudar123 (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sudar123 - your understanding of policy needs some work and you'd be wise to take advice from those who have more experience. Something is contentious if it is contended by others. When Qwyrxian sees that two sides have formed on an issue, it does not matter which is right: the issue is contentious. Therefore, whether he reads, supports, or believes in the material, his actions are not involved. Seeing that two sides have formed, he has not previously taken a side as an editor, and if he follows the instructions at WP:PROTECT then he can use the admin bit. Acknowledging that others have contended the addition or removal of content does not make a person involved. In fact, to act without making the determination would be a blind use of the tools. There is no circumstance you can describe, given the conditions of what you describe is involved, where anyone could use the admin bit. So either your understanding of the policy is wrong, or the policy renders all admins involved automatically upon even loading the article history. You are welcome to open that RFC/U that you want to load, but you're going to get a nasty surprise. I suggest you open your ears and listen, because the alternative is just going to make you angry and you're not going to understand why no one is taking your concern seriously.--v/r - TP 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved?

The question about whether or not I violated WP:INVOLVED by blocking you (and my other actions on the article) is being discussed on WP:ANI. I have mentioned your name in the discussion. If you wish to add something to the discussion, please post here and I or another user will copy your comments for you. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You might me involved at the end of the day but that is not up to me to judge. I did mention bias in your reverting on the Sri Lanka talk page, but that was likely done in the heat of the moment. At the end of the day these threads and blocking are extremely unconstructive to the encyclopedia. I am unable to edit (I have noticed at least 10 erroes), Qwyrxian, Sudar123 are spending their time commenting on the ANI threads, instead of editing like they should be. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Email response

I received your email, Intoronto, and it's tone and content was much more likely than those above, to getting you unblocked. I suggest that you pursue WP:OFFER—leave Misplaced Pages for at least 6 months, and, after that point, if you still want to edit here, come back and make an unblock request. One thing that is likely to help your case is if you participate constructively in another Wikimedia project (either another language, or Commons, or Simple). Doing so will help demonstrate your ability to work collaboratively. I can't say for sure whether or not the community will actually accept you back at that point, but I think it's really the best/only way forward here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

6 months though is a very long time imo. I don't know any other language well enough to contribute constructively and at commons I don't contribute unless I need a picture for an article I am working on here. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Which leaves Simple. Simple is a worthwhile project. I am sad that you aren't able to edit here for the time being, but it is what I expected would happen. Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

No thanks I'd rather not. Is 6 months going to really change an editor? Probably not. If I were to come back I would probably be editing like I have, being extra careful to not run into situations like this. I just don't understand the need for 6 months. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 02:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A block is preventative, not punitive - it would prevent for at least 6 months the things that have got you blocked so many times. When you come back, you'll most likely be sure not to let it happen again, because if it did, the next thing would be a ban. You've actually done a lot of good work here, but you need time to reflect on your interaction with the community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Socking

Please note that Intoronto1125 socked from February 15 to February 17 as User: 76.64.228.218. Beyond the obvious similarity in interests, there are some key identifying traits which mark this as Intoronto; I'm not posting them here per WP:BEANS, but anyone with a need to know can email me for further details. Because of the socking, the WP:OFFER, assuming Intoronto1125 has any intention to take advantage of it, is reset until 6 months from today. Furthermore, Intoronto1125, you should understand that every time you sock you decrease the chances that you will ever be allowed back on the project; if you keep it up, you're likely to eventually be site-banned. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to your email

I received your email (I usually do not respond via email unless the editor is someone I already know and trust). As to whether or not you can be unblocked, as long as you have not socked since the last time I caught you (that was in February 2013), then you've passed the minimum 6 months necessary to make a new unblock request per WP:OFFER. You may do so here by posting a new request. I recommend that before doing so, you read WP:GAB, and formulate a block request that clearly explains what was wrong with your editing before and how you intend to edit differently in the future. While I may respond, I won't make a formal declaration on the unblock, since I was the blocking admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Intoronto1125 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been six months and I am ready to come back and edit Misplaced Pages constructively. Obviously what was wrong with my editing was the edit warring, and I intend to stay away as much as possible from articles related to that topic in the future. I plan on editing multi-sporting events that do not really have up to date coverage.

Decline reason:

You lost me at "it's been six months" since you were evading this block within the last few days. A block means you the person behind the account, are not supposed to edit Misplaced Pages under any identity until the block is lifted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 17 September 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.

Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Which other IPs have you been editing with over the last six months? May be a good idea to be transparent with this request. Kuru (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, obviously the one listed above but after that at most 3-4 times to fix a grammar error here and there. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are you not sure? Which articles have you been editing? This shouldn't be a difficult task to research. Kuru (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been that recent but and . Intoronto1125TalkContributions 23:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This one, and this one as well? Kuru (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it appears you've been simply evading your block almost continuously right up until your request above. Since you've been less than honest with me, I'd be very uncomfortable copying your request over to ANI/AN. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I was being honest, just that those last two I didn't find until you pointed out. There might be more but I don't know though I doubt it. As I said above I was only fixing errors, not edit warring (the reason I was blocked). I understand edit warring is serious and I don't intend to edit articles related to the topic I was blocked for. I plan on editing articles under the WP:MSE banner which is sorely needing attention and updating. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

-

Intoronto1125 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been more than six months (from my last edit as an IP) and I am ready and eager to come back and edit Misplaced Pages. I will stay away from the topic(s) that got me indefinite blocked in the first place. I plan to contribute by editing articles related to the 2015 Pan Am Games and 2014 Commonwealth Games, both of which at a quick glance appear to be out of date. I hope you can understand I have had ove a year to reflect on why I was blocked and I do truly feel I have learned from my previous mistakes. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 02:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have edited while logged out on the 15th, 16th and 17th of May, the three days preceding your unblock request. Such block evasion is incompatible with the standard offer. This means that I am unable to take your unblock request at face value, and am therefore declining it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:44, 20 May 2014 (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.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Goldringcentreforhps.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Goldringcentreforhps.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Goldringcentreforhps.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Goldringcentreforhps.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Misplaced Pages. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Goldringcentreforhps.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Goldringcentreforhps.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Alpineskiing2010WOG

Template:Alpineskiing2010WOG has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Figure skating at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics – Qualification for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Figure skating at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics – Qualification is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Figure skating at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics – Qualification until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Whpq (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)