User talk:24.98.52.106

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for disruptive diting. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Alexf^(talk) 00:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No explanation for the block has been given. Disruptive editing? What edits? What about them was disruptive? You should be more clear. If you can't take the time to do a job properly, don't do it at all.

It is true that I removed content. This was not vandalism. This was me removing what I contend is an unreliable source. I explained this very clearly. You would have noticed this if you had looked at the edit summary, instead of shooting first and asking questions later.

The user who requested that I be blocked is edit warring. I attempted to discuss the issue with him. He ignored me (and in fact reverted my changes to his talk page three times). I reported him for violating the 3RR and instead he had be blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hoops_gza_reported_by_User:24.98.52.106_.28Result:_.29

AND YOU FELL FOR IT. You are an irresponsible admin and I demand an apology.

24.98.52.106 (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You edit comments are sufficient for you to be blocked, regardless of the content. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:05, 24 August 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.

Some of the things you did wrong;

1. You shouldn't revert things on other people's talk pages [1] [2]. It's their talk page; if they choose to remove messages, that's their own choice. In particular, you shouldn't repeatedly undo/revert things. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

2. You should not refer to another editor as a "moron" [3] or "idiot" [4]. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

3. You should not repeatedly reinsert the same information into an article; if someone disagrees with you, stop and discuss it. There are various ways to get to a consensus; until there is a consensus, do not keep reinserting. [5] [6] [7] [8] WP:3RR. WP:DISCUSS

4. "Vandalism" is a very specific term. This and this were not vandalism. WP:VANDAL

Those are not necessarily the only problems, but they are some of the more obvious ones. In order for your appeal to succeed, you will need to explain that you fully understand why those actions were wrong.

Note, what the other editor did is irrelevent to your appeal, see WP:NOTTHEM. 88.104.23.102 (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, that old line. As an African-American, I'm experienced enough with prejudice to know what WP:NOTTHEM really means: "We do have rules, but we're going to selectively enforce them (in this case, on an IP user and not on an account holder) and there's nothing you can do about it." And I suppose that's true. But that's not going to stop me from pointing out that it's bullshit. You'll notice that Hoopswhatever is happily discussing the sourcing issue and how he had no idea what my issue with the source was (despite the five messages to him I wrote that he ignored) now that there's no one to dispute his version of events.

• The popular version of events is that IP users vandalize more often than account holders because they don't have to go to the trouble of creating an account. And I think there's some truth to that. But I think there's a second reason: Administrators are prejudiced against people without accounts. They overenforce the rules against IPs and underenforce them again people with accounts.

• This is reminding me why I quit being a regular contributor to Wikipedia six years ago. It's more trouble than its worth.

• • To expand on this slightly, here's what I mean. To make one small change (remove an unreliable source) to one article, I had to:
    • Apply my revision three times.
    • Post on a user's talk page three times, requesting we discuss any disagreements (all posts were ignored and reverted).
    • Request the user be blocked for edit warring.
    • Reply to a request to block me for vandalism with an explanation that I was not vandalizing the page.
    • And after all this, I'm blocked for "vandalism" (despite no prior history of vandalism, real or imagined), the other user is not blocked for edit warring (despite two previous blocks for edit warring), and the page is the way it was originally, unreliable source and all.
    • Does this strike you as reasonable?

Re "old line" - no. I am, actually, arguing just as strongly about the other person's behaviour - see [9]. However, what they did is entirely irrelevent to your own block appeal.

As for the rest of it - yes, I totally agree that IP users are often treated very unfairly. I care a lot about that problem. However, it does not excuse you calling others a "moron" and the other things I mentioned. You have not addressed those issues.

Re your step-by-step; the problem was, your first step - "Apply my revision three times". You shouldn't have re-applied it until their was an agreement.

Similarly, I'm telling the other party they shouldn't have reverted more than once.

Stop, discuss, get consensus. Edit-warring never solves anything. Regardless of what the other person does, you can choose to stop and follow the appropriate process - ie. start a discussion, get a consensus, then re-do the edit, pointing to the agreed consensus.88.104.23.102 (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)