User talk:Intoronto1125

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


RETIRED
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of May 2014.

December 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. Back in April, you were blocked indefinitely for edit warring. Toddst1 unblocked you in July under the condition that you never edit war again. At the end of November/beginning of December, you were involved in an edit war on Sri Lanka; however, because it was a problem of many users, you were not blocked. I fully protected the article for 1 week; during that week, you didn't make any attempt to discuss the actual content (only bothering to argue that I was WP:INVOLVED). After the protection expired, you still never discussed the content. Today, you decided to revert to your preferred version, thus restarting the edit war. It appears that you simply are unable to edit Wikipedia without edit warring. You either are unable or are refusing to engage in the discussion process necessary to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. Since you've already been given final chances, I don't see how you can be allowed to edit Wikipedia now or in the future. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{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.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2012 (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.

Intoronto1125 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


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 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 for as long as you are blocked.

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)
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.

Intoronto1125 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


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 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 for as long as 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 (t/a/c) 21:09, 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)

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 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'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)

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)


Socking[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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.

Intoronto1125 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

It has been six months and I am ready to come back and edit Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 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 for as long as you are blocked.

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)
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)
This one, and this one as well? Kuru (talk) 01:05, 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)

-[edit]

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.

Intoronto1125 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


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 Wikipedia. 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 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 for as long as you are blocked.