User talk:Dwavenhobble

Welcome!

Hello, Dwavenhobble, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

==Notice: sanctions apply to Gamergate controversy topics==

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Debate on enforcement page

Please stop engaging in content-debating on the sanctions enforcement page [1]. Statements on that page ought to be made exclusively for the purpose of submitting factual evidence directly pertinent to the sanction request in question. Please see my warning here [2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Friendly request: please try to use {{reflist-talk}} when using references on talk pages. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Gamergate controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for revert-warring at Gamergate controversy. 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.  5 albert square (talk) 21:03, 21 December 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Less than 3 reverts made in a 24 hour period. The reverts made were to maintain the edit made by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom to notify users of the protected status of an article clearly edits were made by subsequent users to try to conceal the notification by reducing the size of the lock as has been seen multiple times. Until the wikipedia arbitration comittee finishes work upon this then said lock and visibility is a requirement on the article under wikipedia's rules. As no talk page consensus was presented on the lock size on the talk page prior to this the reverts were reverting vandalism of the article by other users.

Decline reason:

Firstly, WP:3RR doesn't mean you weren't edit-warring until the third revert. There was actually a discussion on the talk page to which you did not contribute. Secondly, the claim that you were maintaining The Red Pen of Doom's edit is patently false since you reverted TRPoD, too. Thirdly, see WP:Not vandalism. Since your unblock request indicates that you feel justified in your conduct and would resume it, you will remain blocked. If you think Wikipedia's rules require the display of a large tag for protected articles, you should have provided a link to that policy or guideline on the talk page, at the very least in an edit summary. Huon (talk) 21:48, 21 December 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.

{{unblock|Second request as the first failed to fully investigate the reasoning. The reverts in question where 639056095 and 639087002 neither edit by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom The lock size was changed from WP:S-P default by other users and can be seen by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy#The_visibility_of_the_.22page_protected.22_icon no consensus has been reached and as such reverting the lock icon size edits would count as vandalism on the part of the users User:NorthBySouthBaranof and User:Bosstopher neither of which have contributed to the discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy#The_visibility_of_the_.22page_protected.22_icon< as such as per wikipedia Validalism "Any edit that changes content in a way that deliberately compromises the integrity of Wikipedia is considered vandalism" The reverts made by me improved the integrity by maintaining clear representation of the status and template useage of WP:S-P in its default state. As such I put it to you I was blocked not for Vandalism but for reverting the work of vandals who didn't engage in the discussion. I am blocked yet they are free to edit. Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy#The_visibility_of_the_.22page_protected.22_icon As you can see none of the users in question have engaged in the talk page. The template used is the default template provided by Wikipedia the claims I reverted edits by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom are false. Therefore I submit again that this is an unjust block Dwavenhobble (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)}}

Firstly I reverted before that convo even existed. 2ndly that icon doesnt mean what you think it is, and the talk page convo you linked notes that that convo do.esnt mean what you think it does. Dont just listen and believe to everything KotakuinAction tell you. Thirdly, this indef block seems very over the top. Edit warring over the style of template used on a wikipage out of ignorance, seems a ridiculous reason to indef block someone. We have multiple people who've merely been topic banned for BLP violations and this guys getting an indef based on making a template bigger instead of smaller.Bosstopher (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Check the page history. Here is the diff of TRPoD re-adding the "small=yes" tag to that template, here is your subsequent edit reverting TRPoD. But you're not blocked for reverting TRPoD, specifically, but for reverting repeatedly without discussion - precisely the behaviour you criticize in others (though it isn't vandalism since both sides are equally convinced they're working towards the good of the encyclopedia). And TRPoD certainly was active in that talk page discussion, so that claim also happens not to be correct. As a further aside, the editor who originally added the tag already used the "small=yes" parameter. Regarding the block length I'd agree, but the lack of understanding demonstrated in the unblock requests indicates to me that an unblock at the moment would result in the resumption of the edit-warring. Huon (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If I can find other examples of other editors reverting a certain change on that page 3 times without discussion, would you also treat them equally with an indefinitely block? WhatOn (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok check my contribution history. If as is claimed my ban is because I am here merely to edit war and not contribute then you will not find the following. As such I put it to you the permanent ban has no basis as if I were here merely to edit war then those would not exist as such I'd like to see the wikipedia rule stated which dictates the specified lock size required as is being claim I need to prove it is against policy to change the lock size I cite WP:S-P template. Which does not specify changes to the lock size are allowed even by admin. Again no consensus has been met on the talk pages regarding the lock size and no rule can be cited stating the lock size should be changed. As said rule cannot be cited therefore this ban is due to bias alone and counts as a defamation action. So can you therefore cite a rule which has been broken as if consensus cannot be established there is no reason for the edit to have occurred. and by your own admission both of us believe we are doing good for the encyclopaedia so this isn't covered by Wikipedia vandalism rules. so can you state a reason beyond personal opinion tha I should be banned that said ban is valid ? Dwavenhobble (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

So is this for reverting 2 single edits of a button size? And this is an indefinite topic ban? What? What's left for other editors Loganmac (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's an indefinite block, now with talk page access revoked. Arguing that someone adding "small=yes" to a template is vandalism is completely absurd, and I'm not going to entertain an unblock request based on this notion. PhilKnight (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow this is the worst I've seen, so the guy gets banned site wide for edit warring a button, defending himself is somehow disruptive, and this behaviour somehow shows that's his contributions are unwelcome, yet other editors get away with daily 3RRs. Wouldn't this have been more appropiate for the General Sanctions board? Loganmac (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.