User talk:Courtesy.Arlabon

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nurse Nayirah, you will be blocked from editing. clpo13_(talk) 18:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

That's five reverts today. I have reported your edit warring to the appropriate administrative forum. csloat (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Nurse Nayirah. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:34, 24 August 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was the one preserving the page from vandalism. The vandal Commodore sloat had reached the three reverts first and I had already reported him. He should be the one blocked.

Decline reason:

Clear case of edit warring; block is appropriate. You can be unblocked if you agree to restrict yourself to the talk page of the article in question until a consensus is reached. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:48, 24 August 2009 (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.

The user you speak of had three reverts, you had five. To break the rule, you need more than three, ie four or more. The edits appear to be a content dispute, and thus you should have discussed it on the talk pages, sought dispute resolution, or requested page protection and not revert war. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did all of those on the proper messageboards, but obviously he contacted you personally.{{unblock|Your reason here}} Also the three revert rule has an exception in cases of vandalism. Which this clearly is the case.Courtesy.Arlabon (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually only had two but just took my third to revert his fifth... In any case, the anon user's edits are very much against the consensus on the page, and he refuses to explain them other than to fill the talk page with incoherent rambling and personal attacks. Under such conditions there is really no chance of his edits being accepted there. Hopefully the block will help encourage a different approach to editing. csloat (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst you (csloat) did not technically violate the rule, you should try to talk with the user here to seek consensus so when the block is up things have been discussed. If you cannot come to consensus seek WP:DR and if any revert war starts up (regardless of who starts it) immediately cease and request protection at WP:RFPP. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Your reason here}}I am demanding to be unblocked and an apology, because I was obviously blocked unfairly by a friend of commodore sloats.

Note: User has prima facie evaded their block to edit my talk page (here). Nja²⁴⁷ 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read What vandalism is not, and dispute resolution, before continuing to accuse other editors of vandalism. Disagreement about content (what should or should not be included in an article) is not the same thing as vandalism. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a disagreement about content, they did not add content, they tag-team reverted my page.

Also blocking me is pointless, as I have no intention of changing that article. My intention all along was to have the article reveiwed for NPOV. And of course I know it will pass. All you kept me from doing is setting up my user page.

contest the block I am not asking to be unblocked early. I am asking that the administrator that blocked me for reporting a tag-team reversion war be stripped of his administrator position. Along with the administrator that participated in the tag-team.

I can guarantee you that it is absolutely certain that your request will not be granted; but if you wish to take the time and energy to do so, you can study the process that would be required, starting with our dispute resolution procedures. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that when I wrote it. I was still angry when I asked for the administrator that blocked me be stripped. However he gave my request a two second glance before blocking me.

Most importantly Nja247 not only unjustly blocked me, he did it before commodore sloat even reported me. He was in on the tag-team. They all had me tagged, and when I was filling out a report on commodore sloat is when he blocked me. When I submitted the form I had no edit conflicts, I had to type coded letters because I had submitted links. Then after that I was done it informed me I was blocked. Look he hadn't even visited the board before he blocked me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:165.166.14.146&diff=prev&oldid=309825753 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=309825946 . I am also certain that when I was returned to the page, there was no message from commodore sloat at the bottom

This was a premeditated coordinated attack on me. They planned the edit war and got away with it.

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here

Decline reason:

Your block has expired. Closedmouth (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2009 (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.

They tag-team reverted the article while I was adding (not removing) content to it. They all had me tagged, so they knew I was working on the article at that time. They started reverting so fast they even reverted each other. I had given up on adding the material and went to the three revert rule forum to report them for tag-team reversion. Nja247 also had me tagged and he knew that I was no longer trying to add material to the page. He knew that I was going to report his buddies, that is why he blocked me. Afterwards commodore sloat filled out the complaint against me.

Nja247 did not decide to block me for the report; he and his buddies decided to block me before I even started adding material to the page.

That is premeditation to tag-team revert by definition. The proof is in the timetable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nja247. I was not only unjustly blocked. I was blocked when there was the only complaint filed against me had been determined in my favor. The complaint I was supposedly blocked for was manufactured after I was blocked and doesn't have a word of truth other than very selective page diffs.

As to why I wanted to conform the page to NPOV, I wanted it to be reveiwed for NPOV and passed. That makes the article capable of receiving a grade. I was helping commodore sloat when he and his friends attacked me. If he had wanted to re-add the badly sourced material to the improved article I would only have protested for appearance sake. It wouldn't have affected the outcome of the NPOV reveiw.

Blocked[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for using this account initially for block evasion, and since only for disrupting Wikipedia, issuing personal attacks, and using Wikipedia as a battleground. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]