User talk:Acoma Magic

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Acoma Magic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to edit

{{unblock | reason=I'm not an expert regarding these things, but since this account is connected to this IP address, I don't think anybody else can use this IP address and perform disruptive editing. So can you unblock me and only block again if I disruptively edit Wikipedia? I'm editing Wikipedia constructively, as can be seen from my edits, though I've forgotten to log in most of the time. [[User:Acoma Magic|Acoma Magic]] ([[User talk:Acoma Magic#top|talk]]) 03:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)}}

You don't appear to be directly blocked, meaning you're either under an autoblock or are collateral damage from a rangeblock. Use {{unblock-auto}} and fill it out with the information that appears when you try and edit. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can edit now for some reason. If it happens again, maybe I should just wait a day. Thanks though. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I can't edit again. {{unblock-auto You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.

You are still able to view pages, but you are now not able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from 76.73.0.0/17 has been blocked (disabled) by Zzuuzz for the following reason(s): The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you believe you are not running an open proxy, the most likely cause is that another customer from your ISP who was previously assigned this IP address was running an open proxy. If this is the case, please request to be unblocked using the {{unblock}} template, or request administrator attention using {{admin!}} and indicate you are caught by an open proxy block. More rarely, your network equipment or that of your service provider may be misconfigured or compromised by malicious software (such as a virus). In some cases, this can be remedied by logging into the secure server. For more information, see the Wikiproject on Open Proxies and Wikipedia:Open proxies. (Sandbox test edit)

This block has been set to expire: 22:55, 10 May 2014. Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail. Note: Please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information. }}

So the question e need answered is: Are you in fact editing from an open proxy? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have temperally nulled the templates. To reactivate, just remove 'tl|' from them. Mdann52 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is somebody going to unblock me? Also, the block doesn't work very well. I can still edit sometimes, while other times a block notice comes up. Maybe somebody should tell the Wiki developers. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show preview

Could you explore the utility of the "Show preview" button? It saves the watchlist milage. Regards Tiderolls 00:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, that'll work well. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales

I have initiated a new section on Talk:Jimmy Wales for your reference. Please go here. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hopiakuta

Hello, Acoma Magic. You have new messages at Hopiakuta's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 00:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am so very sorry for the insult.

hopiakuta Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 23:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed, there was no insult. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling & more message. Thank You.

hopiakuta Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 06:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you ,,

I was only trying to do the right thing. — Ched : ? 04:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have helped in the unblock discussion. Acoma Magic (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Russell

I am reverting your last edit at Jason Russell under the BLP exemption, and per your suggestion I am pursuing resolution at N/BLP. Just so you know, consensus (which doesn't exist in this case anyway) does not provide cover for BLP violations. If you put that material back before a decision is reached at the BLP Noticeboard, the next stop will be AN/I. Of course, I'm not telling you what to do - merely informing you in advance of my intentions. Stand by for a link to the N/BLP discussion, which should be available in the next 20 minutes or so. Belchfire-TALK 06:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okally Dokally. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, make your case. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jason_Russell Belchfire-TALK 06:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Noticed you removed a space between a period and a reference; I admire your nitpickyness! —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 19:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks! Acoma Magic (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Russell

I'm not crazy about it, but in the interest of world peace, I'll accept it so we can move on to more important things. Belchfire-TALK 20:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hopefully the war is over. Though I may have to fight Collect and Silver in a final showdown. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on cross-namespace links from Jimmy Wales to user:Jimbo Wales

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jimmy Wales#Rfc: Links to user:Jimbo Wales. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

RS/N

Do not contribute to closed discussions. Your actions are disruptive. Please stop. If you have further concerns regarding this source, or any source, feel free to start a new discussion at RS/N about sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had to reply to those two statements. It should be closed when replies are no longer expected. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal need to reply is not a purpose countenanced by RS/N; and, in fact, the purpose of closing a discussion is often to prevent such additional commentary. RS/N rarely closes discussions where the discussion is on topic, and you should consider why a discussion was closed before indulging the need to further comment. RS/N's purpose is to discuss sourcing issues. The original closer noted that discussion had moved away from discussing sourcing, the purpose of RS/N. If you find yourself unable to restrain yourself, then I suggest asking for a review of your editing habits or discussing the matter with the people at WP:WQA. Both of these forums include editors with well developed skills at discussing how to best and most collegially contribute to the encyclopaedia. If you still have outstanding sourcing concerns regarding the source under discussion in that section, feel free to start a new RS/N discussion on that source's reliability. Happy editing! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I needed to defend myself, especially against what I was responding to in my second reply to the closed discussion. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is that simple. If you attempt to defend yourself on RS/N your actions may be treated as disruption—if you are unaware, disruption can be a serious civility issue. RS/N is not a forum for people to defend themselves, it is a forum for users to discuss the reliability of sources. If you believe someone is making personal attacks, then please read WP:NPA and follow the advice there. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a fairly strong attack on me. I replied 14 minutes after the IP posted on the closed discussion. My options were to remove it or defend myself. I reckon I made the right decision. Acoma Magic (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the user page maintenance. You're pretty speedy. Belchfire-TALK 05:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Acoma Magic. You have new messages at Family Research Council's talk page.
Message added 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FRC

There are too many troublemakers throwing up walls of indents on the talk page. Can you put your proposals here and we can work on them together? After we finish we can submit one for the entire talk page. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure:

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which has received opposition, mostly from conservatives. Opponents of the decision objected to the SPLC grouping violent and extremist organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan with the FRC. The controversy was exacerbated following a shooting at FRC's headquarters in Washington, D.C. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Family Research Council. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Swarm ^X 06:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing a change, participating in an edit war over that change and then falsely accusing another user of trying to make a change to the article without consensus is completely unacceptable behavior. Once your block expires, you will have ample time to discuss any modifications to the article before the page protection expires. Swarm ^X 06:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't falsely accuse him of anything. He didn't revert back to the original version but to something else and demanded consensus to change his version. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The diffs are higher up for reference. In the "participating" diff, I reverted somebody's change to the original version, in part because of the rubbish reason "better version" and the content had already been edited by several people and was different to my original change but received support to stay by others. In the "edit war" diff, I reverted a change that didn't even go to the original version but to something else. I reverted that edit and the next one because it was introducing a change that had several problems with it and consensus was on him to get support for his version over the previous one that had support by about 6 people (judging by comments on talk page and in the edits). Acoma Magic (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see nothing unreasonable about this block. You introduced new wording to a controversial article, then made three reverts to retain your material. While not a a technical 3RR violation, this was certainly disruptive edit warring. You've been clearly warned about this several times over the last few days relating to that very article. Take a break, read over WP:BRD and WP:EW. Kuru (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2012 (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.

It wasn't my material I was reverting to. It was material edited by several others and agreed upon. I reverted two edits by one person who wanted to change it to his version. Check the edit summaries and talk page for confirmation. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia's origins

Two thoughts for you, that I doubt interest anyone else at Talk:Tom Cruise:

Google Scholar gives me 3800 ghits on the string '"Tom Cuise" gay'. That's an awful lot of hits if scholars aren't talking about it.
I think that why people think that being gay is negative is actually something of a mystery. I can't explain it myself: it's unusual (~3%), but so's being a natural redhead (~2%). There are disadvantages (difficulty reproducing, for example), but same with being a natural redhead (dying earlier due to skin cancer, for example, not to mention Parkinson's, autism, and several other diseases that affect redheads). And yet a false claim that you're gay is negative, and a false claim that you're a natural redhead is positive or neutral in the West. I understand that scholars in the area also wonder why it's considered such a strongly negative, rather than "just one of those things". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the first page of results, there was nothing discussing that though.

I think it's several factors, both evolutionary and from society. It harms your chances of reproducing if people think you're gay or say you are to others. The proportion of people who are gay is low, around 1-3%. This means if you're part of that group, you're a minority that is different to 98% of others. If you want to survive, you need to be part of a group/tribe and being different to them means you may not be accepted in that group. So they're all evolutionary reasons. For society, people use the term 'gay' as also meaning 'rubbish'. That contributes to it being a negative. The reason the word also means rubbish or weird, is because being gay is being the odd one out to the vast majority of people. So for evolutionary reasons, it's regarded as undesirable and something that is undesirable is called something negative such as rubbish or weird. People therefore also regard it as a negative when applied to them and use it as an insult to others. Acoma Magic (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, as I'm sure you know, religion has to do with most of the negative/strongly negative feelings toward homosexuality.

Acoma Magic, I seriously doubt that only 1-3% of the human population is gay...unless perhaps using "gay" to only refer to men with regard to that 1-3% estimation. And I say "human" because homosexual activity and even homosexual sexual orientation has been observed in non-human animals. And the reason that I seriously doubt that such a small percentage of the human world is gay/lesbian is because human society is so heteronormative and studies vary on just what percentage of people are gay/lesbian, or even consider themselves bisexual; some studies state that 10-20% of the population are gay/lesbian or have at least engaged in homosexual (sexual) activity. And most of these studies have only been done with regard to the Western world, or, more specifically, the United States. Even if homosexuality as a sexual orientation (as in being wired that way in the brain) isn't too prevalent, homosexual (sexual) activity is, as seen among women to a greater degree than men...and in prisons (male or female prisons). A lot of people who consider themselves heterosexual find that they are willing to engage in sexual activity with the same sex when their desired sex is not available. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are anomalous results. Some are as low as 0.3%. From the majority of sources, my estimate is 2% gay and 1% lesbian. Same-sex sexual contact of any kind is higher at maybe 5-10%. Acoma Magic (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the term 'gay' as an insult is prevalent among young people, who are mostly atheists. So as an insult, religion only has a minor role. Acoma Magic (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the term "gay" is prevalent as an insult among young people in general, in the U.S and maybe the UK to be specific. The Gay article addresses this. And since most people are religious, I believe that it's mostly religious young people...although it doesn't seem to be about homophobia for most of the young people who use the term as an insult. In any case, most of the time that people state their personal adversion to homosexuality, it is religious-based. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the US most young people are religious. However, Europe, UK and Oceania have a large majority of young people as atheists and 'gay' or related terms referring to homosexuality is still an insult. Acoma Magic (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even with a large number of people in those parts of the world being athiest, I'm still certain that most people who live in those areas are religious. Most of the world is anyway, like I stated. But I also stated "although it doesn't seem to be about homophobia for most of the young people who use the term as an insult," so I agree on that point. "That's so gay," for example, has simply become common parlance to mean "That's so stupid." 217.147.94.149 (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Majorities in those countries are religious, but luckily it's a rarity among the young. Also though, its not just 'gay' to mean 'stupid' but just alluding to somebody being gay is making fun of that person. The Inbetweeners shows that and although it's an exaggeration, it does have basis in reality (very funny TV show too). Acoma Magic (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't know that "religion has to do with most of the negative/strongly negative feelings toward homosexuality". It appears that it was negative thousands of years ago, in nearly all moral codes, and on every inhabited continent. It's not just a Jewish or Christian or Muslim thing, and anyway nearly all of the Christian sexual code is actually the middle-class pagan Roman code.

The question, if you want to put it that way, is how did religious people decide that homosexuality was negative in the first place? It's not like they got together and said, "Let's start a religion. Of course, we'll be in favor of all that's good and opposed to all that's bad, but let's have a few new twists, like homosexuality being bad instead of neutral, which everyone else thinks." Religions work the other way around: "Of course we all favor good and abhor evil, and of course we all already know that gay sex is evil, as is murder and theft." The idea didn't start with religion, but I don't think anyone has a plausible explanation for where it did start, beyong some handwaving about "it's not natural" and the practical argument that children represent wealth and familial immortality, and gay sex doesn't lead to children. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, while negative/strongly negative feelings toward homosexuality didn't start with religion, "most of the time that people state their personal adversion to homosexuality, it is religious-based" (like I stated to Acoma Magic). Hardly ever do we hear/read about people basing their negative/strongly negative feelings toward homosexuality with regard to the reproductive system aspect alone. But I don't see how there can be any doubt that that's where negative/strongly negative feelings toward homosexuality originated from -- the "it's not natural" and "doesn't lead to children" argument. However, it's also confusing because, while there were arguments in ancient times that two men engaging in sexual activity with each other was unnatural (I mention male homosexuality because female homosexuality has always been perceived as less threatening, except for in cases when one of the females were labeled a hermaphrodite, even though female homosexuality has been discriminated against as well), heterosexual people were also engaging in sex acts termed unnatural. I guess they figured that male-female sexual activity is more natural, no matter what sex act is being performed...and that it can at least usually lead to reproduction.

Acoma Magic, going back to the percentage topic... I'm not sure that even most people are heterosexual, not fully. A lot of sexologists (and some researchers with some connection to human sexuality studies) believe that everyone has the potential to be sexually attracted to both sexes, or, if not sexual attraction, the ability to receive sexual pleasure from both sexes as separate from true sexual attraction (the prison example is just one example). So it can be argued that people who are fully heterosexual and people who are fully homosexual are rare. Alfred Kinsey certainly seemed to believe that most people fall in the middle on the sexual scale. So many people have stated that they thought they were heterosexual and later realized that they were gay/lesbian or that the bisexual label fits them better. And there is no doubt that there are many people who are closeted and will remain closeted, either secretly engaging in same-sex sexual behavior or remaining in heterosexual relationships all their lives; that's why I mentioned the fact that human society is heteronormative, as in most of us grow up thinking that male-female sexual relationships is how it should be. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

What you're doing is petty. You need to stop. Nowhere on Wikipedia do we decrease the percentages due to the margin of error nor change language. If you want to mention the margin, fine, but don't change what the source said. Thank you. Teammm ^TM 01:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't decrease the percentages. The percentages given are 51% and 53%, barely more than half. The margin of error is such that it could easily go down to half (i.e. 50.49%). It should not state a majority when the sources show that it could be half or less. I'll move it to the talk page of the article. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should state what the source wrote. And it does. Teammm ^TM 01:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to take the entire source into account, not just a quote of a few words. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Since you hate templates, you made a bold edit, it was changed, you reverted 1, undone again, you reverted 2, undone again, and you reverted a third time. Note, the only reason I haven't blocked you is because you've edited your talk page since then and not reverted again. Had I not seen you were online, you'd be blocked. Also note, I only called the other editors reverting "undo" to keep the distinction between yours and their edits clear. Edit warring will not be tolerated.--v/r - T P 15:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I forgot how many reverts I did since it was across a range of content in the article (as opposed to reverts of a single material which is easy to keep track of). Acoma Magic (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. – MrX 20:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Same-sex marriage. 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 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. Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the amount of time a bock lasts get decided? I ask since 31 hours seems quite random. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you made a mistake at the board. It was 3 reverts, not 4. Does that change anything? Acoma Magic (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The block page gives me preset time frames, although I can block for any period I believe is appropriate. 31 hours is one of the preset periods, and if you look at WP:ANEW, I upped the "conventional" 24-hour period for a first-time offense to 31 hours because of your block earlier this month. Time frames aren't "random", but they are, of course, discretionary. Another admin might have made it less or more.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the 5th revert? You said you blocked because of the 5th revert listed, however, it wasn't a revert. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that as well at ANEW ("Then, you went ahead and made a change to the article after that, even though you should well know that undoing other editors' material (which is what you did), even if it is different material, constitutes a revert."). See WP:3RR ("Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.").--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an undo though. It was removal of content that was added ages ago. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acoma, you need to read and understand the policy better, particularly when, as here, you were warned. You're taking risks that simply aren't worth it. If you have trouble understanding the policy, ask an admin to help you. You could have, for example, asked TP, who I'm sure would have been glad to help you with the policy and thereby prevent you from violating it. You don't have to click on "undo" to undo another editor's material. If you could get by with that technicality, you could simply remove a previous editor's material by editing the article rather than clicking on undo. Reverts are changing someone else's material, whether you delete it or alter the wording of it. Some also argue that an addition of material constitutes a revert, but we don't have to go there because you didn't add material; you removed/changed material.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense. A person often makes dozens of edits to an article within the space of half an hour that remove content each time. They're not reverts. Your claim is that you cannot make 4 edits to articles that remove content; which isn't the policy. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try one last time, Acoma. After that, I'll let someone else take a stab at it. Let's assume a scenario in which several editors are changing the content to an article in a 24-hour period. No one is battling with each other or disagreeing with each other, even if some editors are modifying another editor's change(s). For example, I might change some material in an article, and another editor thinks my change was wonderful, but I made a typo, which they correct. During that 24-hour period, one of the editors makes three non-consecutive changes to the article. Do you think it likely that anyone is now going to warn the editor that a fourth change would violate 3RR? And if they reported the editor, they would probably be laughed out of ANEW. That's not your case, though. You were clearly edit-warring, as TP pointed out. Once you're in the middle of a dispute, any change you make to the article is going to be perceived by many admins as a revert. Some might forgive you if you made an innocuous change like correcting the tense of a word, but that's not what happened here. You were warned by template. You didn't like the template and removed it. You were then personally warned by TP and yet you went ahead and made significant changes to the article's material, even if it wasn't the material that was in dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a significant change. It was the removal of a sentence from an image. That content also had nothing to do with what was in dispute. What you're describing isn't in any of the policy pages I've seen. On the edit warring and 3RR policy page, it doesn't say "any change you make to the article is going to be perceived by many admins as a revert". It doesn't come close to saying that either. Also, what kind of policy would that be? Am I supposed to guess what most (not even all!) admins regard as a revert? Acoma Magic (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you removed a sourced sentence from the caption of an image. Although somewhat unusual to have such a thing in the first instance, it's no different from removing a sourced sentence from the body. In other words, it wasn't a formatting or otherwise minor change to the caption.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I don't think what I did counts as a revert and I'm unable to find anything on any policy page that says it is. Can you quote me anything from a policy page that says it is? Acoma Magic (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of WP:EW says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." If you read it carefully, it does not say that the edits have to match in any way.--v/r - T P 00:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. You two are grasping at straws. Removing a sentence from a description of an image did not override anything and as you can see, nobody yet disagrees with it. I think an unblock is due. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The blocking admin said he blocked me for this: [1] He said that is a revert, I disagree so I'm doing this unblock request. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If that one edit were the sole conduct of yours that would support an edit-warring block, I'd be putting this on hold to talk to the blocking admin. It's not whether the material was sourced here that counts; it's the fact that, as you noted, it refers to someone who is not in the image and does not seem relevant to the image itself. I will share this opinion with the blocking admin. However ... that was not the only such edit you made. A check of the page history shows what is undeniably an edit war between you and another editor over how to characterize the poll results in a source. I do not know at this point if the other editor was also blocked; we are not here to decide if he should have been and your conduct is all that matters. But given that you were blocked for edit warring before you should be more than aware that it's impermissible, and there is that much less tolerance for further such actions on your part. Therefore I'm sustaining the block. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2012 (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.

I know I was at 3 reverts, but TP said he wouldn't block and then Bbb23 said he wouldn't block for the 3 reverts either, but for the 'revert' I listed above. However, since it wasn't a revert then I think I should be unblocked. Acoma Magic (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. 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 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.

Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't been edit warring and the admin didn't even provide any examples. The only thing I can think of is the Oprah article, but it was only two reverts and the second was because it had been 17 hours since the user said they were fixing the quality and I thought the user still hadn't yet fixed it. I don't see how it could be that, but it's the only thing I can think of. Acoma Magic (talk) 3:40 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

One! One revert! Two! Two reverts! Three! Three reverts! Ah-ah-ah-ah! Danger! ^{High voltage!} 04:29, 22 September 2012 (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.

Well, I'm familiar with your history, as the above unblock denial should show. You want diffs? I got your diffs right here. And given your general tendency toward querulousness, you have made me deeply regret that this block wasn't indefinite as I had originally considered making it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite would make it a bit more ridiculous but a 72 hour block is bad enough. I didn't know the editor changed the quality of it because it looks exactly the same. Since I thought he wasn't going to be fixing it as he said, I removed it. Acoma Magic (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acoma, if I were you, I'd accept the 72 hours and be glad it wasn't longer. You have argued now with four different admins over your conduct, and you apparently can't control yourself. If you really don't care whether you're eventually indeffed, then you can continue your denials, wikilawyering, and willfulness. Otherwise, you should sit out the block without any more comments, and when you come back, demonstrate that you've actually listened and learned. Believe it or not, this is intended as friendly advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second block might be valid if you hadn't got the reason wrong. But the admins of the first block kept saying things about the situation that wasn't true. I went to the talk page of the Oprah article so I don't know what else about edit warring or dispute resolution I need to know. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

It was only two reverts. The first 'revert' listed above was just me removing an image that was added long ago. Obviously it's not a revert otherwise any action that removes any content from an article a few times would result in blocks, which doesn't happen. Acoma Magic (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(1) Your view that "It wasn't an undo though. It was removal of content that was added ages ago," has already been dealt with above, your misunderstanding having been explained at length. (2) Here are just two examples of the edit wars you have recently been engaged in: [2], [3], [4] and [5], [6], [7]. (3) The block was not only for edit warring, but also for general tendentious editing. If you keep on persistently plugging the same points long after it has become totally clear that your view is opposed to unambiguous consensus, then you are likely to be blocked to prevent further waste of everybody's time. (4) The one and only aspect of the block that might be subject to review is the remarkably short length of it. Considering your history of disruptive editing, edit warring, either inability or unwillingness to hear what people are saying, insistence that you alone are RIGHT in the face of consensus, and your previous blocks, a 72 hour block is really minimal. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2012 (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.

That wasn't editing warring on the second trio you listed. There was a discussion on talk and after the person who responded said "fair enough" to another person who agreed with me, I added them again. Regarding the Oprah article, it is two reverts. Calling it 3 reverts is not possible. It's not even a point of disagreement. Wikipedia cannot work if editing of content that was added long ago is counted as a revert. That is not policy and it isn't enforced as such. The problem with this block is that it was two reverts, and the only reason why the second was made was because I thought the person didn't make do on their promise to fix the quality. That person then reverted, bringing them to 3 reverts, yet they got off scott free. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

It was only two reverts and although two reverts can be considered edit warring, I waited 17 hours for the person to make good on their promise to fix the quality of the image. I thought they still hadn't done that, as the image looked exactly the same, and so I reverted. They then made their third revert on that article (somehow avoiding a block in the process) and so I went to the talk page. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If there were ever an list of bad arguments to make when appealing your third edit warring block in as many weeks, "but it was only two reverts!" would be near the top of that list. Declined, talk page access revoked, and block extended to a week. T. Canens (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2012 (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.

It's more than that it was two reverts. It was because the second revert was done for a perfectly innocent reason (17 hours later) and the person who made three reverts didn't get blocked. 190.253.107.251 (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we have to have yet another admin review Acoma's latest unblock request, my recommendation would be to revoke Acoma's talk page access for abusive unblock requests and to extend the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can blocks be extended due to "abuse of the unblock process"? From the policy page it only says that talk page access may be revoked. It doesn't say blocks can be extended. 190.221.29.214 (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, I extend blocks if the unblock request itself violates policy, i.e., by being uncivil or engaging in personal attacks. Arguably, making the same basic request even after it has been thoroughly and multiply rejected can be considered disruptive. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, without anything more, blocks can be extended based on disruptive unblock requests. However, I would add that WP:EBUR states: "Requests such as these are likely to be denied. If made repeatedly, they may lead to your block being extended or removal of talk page access ..." At this point, the two block evasions are sufficient in and of themselves to extend the block yet again (see my comment below), but I wouldn't personally do so without some agreement by at least one of the flock of admins that have been drawn to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the second block evasion by Acoma, I have blocked the second IP address for a week. I have also semi-protected this page for a week. My recommendation is to indef Acoma.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree; this is a user who has let nothing deter him from his quest to exhaust the community's patience. Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes three administrators who think the block should be made indefinite, so I have done it. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z7

Ban discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to participate in this discussion, you will need to request to be temporarily unblocked with the understanding that you can only edit in that AN discussion thread. - Mr X 21:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the talk page block on this page ONLY, so you can make any comments you want here pertaining to the ANI discussion noted above. Any other use of this talk page will be seen as a disruption, as will further sockpuppeting. --Jayron32 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Though a temporary unblock will make this whole process much easier. If I'm unblocked I'll just edit that discussion. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you are still pissed off about your original EW block? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's been a while and it's only occasionally been an inconvenience. I still think it was wrong though. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it wrong because you were the only one that got blocked? You could look at it a different way and say it was half right, as both sides should have been blocked. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we were both blocked I would have accepted mine and wouldn't have repeatedly filed unblock requests and then antagonised the admins by editing this page with socks lol. However, if you have a look, it wasn't an edit war but a misunderstanding about the image so I don't think any blocks should have been given out. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, admins are human too. They are entitled to fuck things up just as much as the next guy. So now it comes down to the socking. How can you convince the community you will not sock should you be unblocked, and then for some unreleated reason you receive another block? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think my lack of socking when I was blocked for 24 hours then another time for 31 hours is convincing. Even though I disagreed with those blocks, I didn't feel they were completely unreasonable and so respected them (as opposed to the Oprah block later on). Acoma Magic (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done for the day, but will think about this some more. You might want to think about some temporary topic bans you would be willing to agree to in order to get unblocked. I would say 6 months on homosexuality broadly construed would be a good starting point. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping by asking these questions. As all my blocks have been due to edit warring I'm wondering if people would prefer a 1R restriction. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're in a position to look at unblocking right now. We're looking at reasons not to enact a community ban. The only reason I could see would be to commit to the WP:Standard offer. No socking for 6 months. At this time, my concern is that you arn't willing to accept when your behavior is wrong and you are blocked for it. I also think it's silly to even consider unblocking someone when we are considering a ban for abusive socking. It'll only lead to socking by others to achieve a 'ban discussion' to draw attention and negotiate an unblock.--v/r - T P 13:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've said that my edit warring is wrong and that's why I've offered a 1R restriction. If you're referring to my answer in which I said that I think my first two blocks were wrong, in the first, at the time, I said why I felt it was wrong and I think I was reasonable in what I said, for the second I agree that I was edit warring but because the reason for the block was for an edit that wasn't a revert, I requested an unblock. I see your point with encouraging socking. However, I've said in the discussion why the standard offer is quite shit. I see why some feel that it is needed, even though it isn't ideal. However I think that offering editing but with whatever restriction is necessary for each particular case would be a better policy. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also say that the standard offer encourages socking in many cases, as those that can't resist editing are forced to use sock after sock and so can't return to their original account. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]