User talk:Asdfsfs

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

December 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on multiple pages, such as Homebrew (video games). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Swarm X 17:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding 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. Toddst1 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding external links[edit]

If you continue to re-add external links to the domains you have been edit warring you will be re-blocked indefinitely. Toddst1 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 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.

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

Request reason:

I got blocked for reinstating links that a vandal persistently removed. My appeal on this matter was dismissed ([[1]]) on the basis that the user was "not active for 12 hours", which is the reason for my edit warring. Asdfsfs (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no evidence at all that the edits you kept reverting were vandalism. Everything I have seen suggests that the person who removed the links was acting in good faith, in the sincere belief that the purpose of teh links was to attract people to the linked web site. Whether you agreed with that assessment is irrelevant: good faith edits are not vandalism just because another editor disagrees with them. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:36, 13 January 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.

Looks to me like a content disagreement rather than vandalism; the IP has been removing links to saying they are advertising, or, more precisely in one edit, link removed because it was not to inform but instead to advertise this individual's business. Is there something that indicates this actually is WP:VANDALISM? --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes – [[2]. Compare this deleted site to the other in the External links section and you won't see much differences in content or credibility. Seems like a personal animosity against this site or whatever, but surely no constructive removal of spam if you ask me.
You are correct; some of the other links in those articles probably should be removed as well. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)