User talk:77.97.151.145

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

July 2014[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Sega Genesis. The community has decided that any discussions about the article's title that bring nothing new to the table are considered disruptive. If you re-ignite the discussion again, you may be construed to be edit warring and can face further sanctions.

I am British. I remember the "Sega Mega Drive" on sale about 25 years ago. I also don't have a problem with the article being "Sega Genesis" for reasons explained in the FAQ. I would therefore like to consider myself unbiased in as much you would think I would support the other viewpoint, but I don't. This is not life or death. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not edit warring , this is seeking outside opinions as the current editors on both sides are entrenched in their positions. bringing up an RfC is totally valid which any user can do on any talk page at any time. Your removal of the RfC is vandalism weather you are an admin or not. I am going to restore it again and if it gets removed again I will go to ANI. Please remember Administrators cannot intervene in content disputes, kthx 77.97.151.145 (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Also while you say you "would support the other viewpoint" that is nice but it is not your views I am seeking, I am seeking the views of people who are uninvolved with this article and do not already have bias one way or the other like you do and like the editors trying to hide the RfC currently do 77.97.151.145 (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring is the repeated overriding and reversing of contributions. It does not matter if you are right. In general terms, an RfC is useful to resolve an intractable dispute, however the discussion of the name has been brought up many times, and in 2013 a general consensus was met by long-standing editors that re-igniting the debate was disruptive. Furthermore, your proposal has been reverted by two independent editors [1], [2]. However, if you want your RfC, then I'll let it stand - but if a third editor reverts it, you really will need to let it go at that point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

You are blocked again, because all you're doing is getting people worked up, just like last time. Let it go. Do not dig up old issues. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

77.97.151.145 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Hello, I would like an uninvolved editor to look into my block, I proposed an RfC on a Naming dispute

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618921986&oldid=618919042
Proposing an RfC is a completely valid way to seek opinions on an ongoing dispute,
This RfC was then censored by user Indrian
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618969857&oldid=618922391
As per WP:VANDALISM "The use of unexplained or bad-faith blanking is often considered a form of vandalism."
So I reverted it #1
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618991855&oldid=618978450
User Ritchie333 then re reverted it with a snide edit summery
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618992113&oldid=618991855
After discussion on this talk page (see above) Ritchie333 conceded that he was ok with the RfC so again I reverted it #2
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618997586&oldid=618992113
User McDoobAU93 then re reverted it again with an snide edit summery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618998091&oldid=618997586
As per my agreement above with Ritchie333 I re reverted it for the final time #3 With an edit summery stating I would be taking the issue to ANI
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618998361&oldid=618998091
User McDoobAU93 then reverted again and reported me for violating 3rr
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618998558&oldid=618998361 Revert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:77.97.151.145_reported_by_User:Ritchie333_.28Result:_Blocked_.29 Report against me on ANI

At this state I would like to point out that I never violated 3RR, the 3 Revert Rule states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." I only made exactly 3 reverts, no more, and at that stage I Referred the issue to ANI.
Onto the ANI Reports users Ritchie333 & McDoobAU93 discussed the issue on Ritchie333's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ritchie333#Talk:Sega_Genesis as you can see they agree I have not done any vandalism but reported me anyway.
I reported these users here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#McDoobAU93 and notified them on their talk pages

At this stage while discussion was ongoing on the Administrator Noticeboards Sergecross73 came along, closed the discussion and banned me for a month.
It should be noted that Sergecross73 is not an independent admin this user has been heavily involved in the naming dispute and was helping out his buddy McDoobAU93 as can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:McDoobAU93#ANI_notification

I feel the ban and ban length are both completely unjustified, I didn't break any of the rules, and when the issue could not continue anymore on the talk page, I did the right thing and referred it to ANI
For this I have been banned for a month.
The following users are heavily defensive of the name Sega Genesis and will not allow any discussion on the issue, by propsing an RfC I was trying to get some independent voices to give their opinion on the issue, this is allowed and should be encouraged on such naming disputes, They say I don't contribute to the article but have made it impossible to contribute by locking the article, these are the users who hold the view and are not independent of one another.
Indrian, Ritchie333, McDoobAU93, Sergecross73, Dream Focus, Red Phoenix, Czar, SexyKick, Chaheel Riens, LedRush, APL and KieferSkunk The users collude with one another to revert edits between them and thus never violate 3RR, they also canvas each other on each others talk pages when polls come up, and they use there admin friends to get people blocked like myself whenever someone with an opposing opinion turns up.

I would like my block lifting as I never broke the rules, and the ANI reports reopened as they were never resolved, If an uninvoled Admin could look into this it would be appreciated

Thanks you for Reading

Decline reason:

In your unblock request, you indicate that this edit is vandalism. Based on this, it is fairly clear that your understanding of vandalism is almost completely wrong. Otherwise, I have, on occasion, suggested editors Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, and so I'm not convinced that this is an unacceptable comment to make under certain circumstances. Overall, your unblock request strongly implies that if you were to be unblocked you would cause more disruption. In this context, I am declining your unblock request. After your block expires, I suggest you don't refer to other editors as vandals, and you avoid making antagonistic comments such as this. PhilKnight (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

  • I missed the ANI thread, and I'm sorry if I came across as confrontational. The essay, Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass is supposed to be a humorous look at how reviving a debate can be disruptive or counterproductive. We have had this debate before and I believe an RfC would cause more drama than going through the wringer again, but this user clearly wants it to happen, so let's let him file it. It won't hurt anyone to have the debate. Consensus can change, and although I'm sceptical since the GA and FA reviews made it clear which way things should have gone, a civilised discussion might be what we need. So unblock him and let's have it out at the RfC.
Incidentally, you were blocked, not banned. We only block people to stop disruption, not to punish. I would have gone for 24 hours myself - enough time to calm down and talk things through. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

While I have been involved in some of said discussions, I've blocked him for blatant and repeated disregard for policy, now and then. Paging through his "contributions" show him clearly making such offensive comments that they/the edit summaries had to be deleted, many times over. He also broke 3RR at least once. It's ver apparent that this person is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather, rile up and offend editors. Sergecross73 msg me 21:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, the debate has already been had, many times solely at this user's behest. The same SPA dredging up the same issue over and over has to stop at some point. Please, no more RFCs. --SubSeven (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. It'd be one thing if someone offered a new, original, good-natured argument as to have this discussion again. This editor just goes about badgering and insulting users, their only "new approach" being baseless accusation that somehow the last 5-10 discussions were somehow "biased" and that it's time to roll the dice and see if things inexplicably go differently this time. Sergecross73 msg me 23:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. Non-constructive comment 1 - IP drops several personal attacks and requests another "kill themself"
  2. Non-constructive comment 2
  3. Disgusting edit summary 1
  4. Disgusting edit summary 2
  5. Generally nonsensical edit - the editor is not an admin, and no personal attack was made
Do these comments look like they're from someone who wants to constructively and rationally have a discussion? Its edits like this that have gotten this IP blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You can't punish me for things I have already served blocks for. 77.97.151.145 (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not. Some of those difs are from July. The April ones show your antagonistic approach on a whole better though. Shows the whole picture. It shows that, after being blocked for edit warring and being antagonistic towards other eidtors, you returned and were edit warring while being antagonistic towards other editors. You'd been warned and blocked over this before, so the block was made longer. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Again I would like to point out that I was not edit warring, when I hit three reverts I referred the matter to ANI 77.97.151.145 (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:EW to see how this statement is wrong. And as the denied block request suggests, there's probably a lot of policies/guidelines you should read up on. WP:VANDALSIM, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA... Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should read up on WP:EW, it clearly states "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period" 77.97.151.145 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the same policy also says that "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." PhilKnight (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah your still here PhilKnight, I never said that edit summery was vandalism btw, I said it was a snide remark, I did however say Indrian's blanking of text was vandalism which it is under WP:Vandalism 77.97.151.145 (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I was, of course, referring to the part that PhilKnight was quoting. And Indrian's edits were not vandalism either. Please read what constitutes vandalism. You not agreeing with it, or not liking it, does not make it vandalism. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

IP-User is using User:Technotopia to get around their block.--SexyKick 18:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)