User talk:Festermunk

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

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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.

November 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent edit-warring, battleground behavior, and WP:IDHT. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 10 November 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.

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


Request reason:

I'm confused by this block, I've tried to explain why I made the edits that I did and explained how I stopped once I was certain they violated Wikipedia editing guidelines (a point which seems to have been completely ignored by the administrator who issued this block), especially in light of the fact that I knew I was coming off a block. Can somebody please look at this case in its entirety and provide me with specific evidence of 'edit-warring or battleground behavior' that merited this block? Festermunk (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You did not stop edit warring when you were made aware, by being blocked several times with limited time periods, that this is against Wikipedia guidelines. Instead, you continued to do so. Please explain how unblocking you this time would lead to different behavior. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

Draft[edit]

I have moved the draft you have created to your user space as User:Festermunk/RT (TV network); subsequently, I have deleted the page (and its talk page) because your account is blocked. In the event you are ever unblocked, please e-mail me or request its undeletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

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.

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


Request reason:

Dear administrator(s), after having not edited on Wikipedia on this account for nearly half a year, I am respectfully asking that this indefinite block on my account be lifted on grounds that I believe I can finally contribute to the Wikipedia community in a constructive manner. Throughout the time that I've spent barred from Wikipedia's editing privileges, I have not only been able to know of the mistakes that led to my block, but have also thoroughly read through Wikipedia's editing guidelines to prevent the repeat of any the past mistakes. More importantly, the time that I've served I think has allowed me to appreciate exactly the kind of damage of what I did to the integrity of some of Wikipedia's founding philosophy; I believe where I fundamentally erred was in misconstruing the Wikipedian community's accommodation of disagreement for license to abuse. I have also learned the importance of taking responsibility for what I did, particularly in light of my attempt to circumvent the block by creating sockpuppet accounts in order to continue using (abusing really) Wikipedia's editing privileges, and that if I am to truly move on from this ugly episode of my Wikipedia life, then I can't continue being a coward and have the courage to admit to the wrongs of my former ways, so in light of that, I would like to say that I am sincerely sorry for what I did in the past and I humbly ask for your trust in my promise that I won't ever do what I did again. Festermunk (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per WP:OFFER, you should wait the full six months, until May 10. I mean, I could forward your request to WP:AN if you want, but be aware that some people do not take kindly to prematurely Standard Offer requests, and I'd advise you to wait. King of ♠ 21:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

Furhter to the above, thanks for the advice. At this point, I'm not sure how to approach your suggestion on whether or not to take it to WP:AN: I think I've been honest and perceptive in identifying the mistakes I've made and I think I've laid out a credible proposal on how to deal with it, which is (as per WP:NOTHERE) to not try to circumvent the block through puppet-sockery and a restructuring (or at least revision) of my editing philosophy, which has always placed a higher premium on confrontation over collaboration. The problem is that I have issues with sock-puppetry and don't know how strong my arguments would be to people reviewing early Standard Offer requests, so any help from you on this would be greatly appreciated.Festermunk (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I personally don't have any issue with early Standard Offers, but the last time I helped someone forward their request to the community, it went down in flames, partly due to the time interval. So I would wait I were you. But it's all up to you. -- King of ♠ 04:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Selective review of your edits[edit]

I performed a highly selective and random review of your edits, only to find a pattern of problems. These include the following:

27 April 2011
  • User erroneously adds a fact tag to a quote made by Kunstler sourced directly to The New York Times (1970).[1]
  • User is reverted by User:Savidan who notes, "there is already a citation"[2]
28 April 2011
  • User erroneously adds a verification tag to a properly cited image from the Library of Congress.[3] Strangely, the user claims "the advertisement does not mention the caption provided, additional info. is needed on this"
  • Two years later, User:Viriditas reverts the edit with "Disruption reverted. Clearly it is verified on the LOC site as the image page shows"[4]
  • User erroneously removes "Larry McCarthy...who is most famous for his Willie Horton ad" which is directly cited to Smith 2010.[5]
  • Added back two years later by User:Viriditas with additional material from source.[6]
30 May 2011
  • User erroneously adds a "fact" tag to a properly cited statement in Christiansen 2003, p. 35.[7]
  • Fact tag is finally removed more than a month later by User:CaliforniaAliBaba who notes "remove {{citation needed}}. this is stated in the source at the location specified: "This migration ... gained a political dimension when Radio Liberty began to employ Uighur staff", etc.)[8]
5 June 2011
  • User erroneously adds a "fact" tag to a properly cited statement in The New Republic (2009).[9]
  • Fact tag finally removed a year later by 192.216.61.102 (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "Removed the 'citation needed tag' to the first sentence of the second to last paragraph. The sentences that follow are examples of this point and they posses citiations. The initial statement is merely a summary of what follows"[10]
5 June 2011
  • User labels Ivins a "liberal" in the lead section and misrepresents a source that does not use the word "liberal" at all[11]
  • The word "liberal" is removed months later in October when User:Hal Raglan notices that the source doesn't even use the term: "Weirdly, the referenced article says nothing about an "unabashed liberal" perspective"[12]
5 June 2011
  • User labels Hightower a "progressive" columnist, without sources[13]
  • The word "progressive" is removed a month later in July by User:ZHurlihee who asks the user to "tone down thw POV"[14]
15 August 2012
  • User adds the {{which}} maintenance tag to a positive statement about the work that is fully sourced at the end of the sentence.[15]
  • The properly sourced material is restored by Viriditas on 23 May, and the erroneous maintenance tag which later justified the erroneous removal of the material is removed.[17]
  • Note: this article has serious COI editing concerns, as the primary criticism comes from an author who released a competing work concurrently with the book by Service. Various editors, from both registered and IP accounts, appear to be promoting this COI agenda.
19 September 2012 - 31 October 2012
  • User twice adds poorly sourced criticism of a BLP.[18][19]
  • Twice the material is removed by IPs.[20][21]
  • Carolmooredc restored a more NPOV presentation of the criticism leaving out the usual non-encyclopedic attacks added by Festermunk.[22]
25 October 2012
  • User turns a small BLP stub into an attack piece on a BLP.[23]
  • Carolmooredc edits the article to make it NPOV and removes the egregious attacks.[24]
31 October 2012
  • User claims that RT calls the org "pro-Kremlin".[25]
  • However, the source is not RT but Russia Beyond the Headlines which has RS issues.
  • Viriditas removes the claim and source in May 2013.[26]