User talk:Fvoltes

June 2020[edit]

Your recent editing history at Ideological bias on Wikipedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | tålk 16:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit summary for this addition to Ideological bias on Wikipedia: "It's true, Larry Sanger published that in his blog as you can see here: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/". Yes, it's true, but not everything that's true belongs in an article; you also have to consider due weight. How is Larry Sanger an important authority on Wikipedia? Bishonen | tålk 16:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for changing another user's comment, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fvoltes. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 16:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was amazed to see you repeatedly editing Doug Weller's comment at the SPI. He wrote it; it bears his signature; but you think you get to change his words? Remarkable. Bishonen | tålk 16:49, 14 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think you know that I did not do that on purpose, I thought it was like an objective preamble to whatever he was about to say next, I was really infuriated because of the false claims against me and the other users. I also think is fairly obvious that I didn't want to 'change his words', as you probably read my justification. After you warned me, I did not edit his comment again, I edited my comment only and also apologised for what's known but got blocked for "editing his comment a second time" when that did not happen Fvoltes (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, I'd really like to. I mean, Bish knows how easy I am. But too many issues, And lest we forget, a CU cannot disprove socking, or an effort orchestrated off-wiki, for that matter. As to the edit warring, Bish left education about that, so I would need teach back on that. Refactoring another persons talk page edits? Really? Can't abide that. I think 48 hours is unduly beneficent --Deep fried okra (schalte ein)

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.

So who did you think wrote the "objective preamble", if not the user whose signature appeared at the end of it?

Note to the reviewing admin: please feel free to unblock if the user convinces you that he's through changing other people's text. You too, Doug Weller. Bishonen | tålk 17:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I knew he wrote that, however, I was so mad that I didn't even read if it was written in the first or third person, I mean, I thought I was supposed to edit that if I had something to say to defend myself. I still didn't do it again, as Bishonen claims. Fvoltes (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you did do it again — why would you say that? [1], [2]. I only noticed the one at first, so I had to clean up after you twice. There was also this, but that was only a small mess-up of Doug's grammar ("on this April"), which can probably be forgiven. Bishonen | tålk 17:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

- I might have unblocked if he'd ever used the talk page instead of editwarring at Ideological bias on Wikipedia. I still find it very strange that we have these 3 inexperienced en.wiki users doing the same edits. This editor is at 4RR. At the very least we should wait for CU. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, how long does it take for the CU to operate? Fvoltes (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A CU has replied at the SPI now: unrelated. Bishonen | tålk 17:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'm hoping that's something good. Also, sorry if you felt aggrieved by my comments in general, I was pretty pissed off. I don't know if you're going to unblock me, but I actually learned lots of good things about Wikipedia in the last discussions, so thank you :D Fvoltes (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It means that technically the accounts cannot be linked. As the Admin who declined your request said, it doesn't prove that you don't have more than one account or that you aren't working together with other editors. The idea that three unrelated editors suddenly showed up at the article pushing the same text seems pretty unlikely, it's more likely that there is some sort of link between either the editors or the accounts. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]