This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
The Age hacking scandal. 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:
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.
Please discuss and agree your edits before making them or you will see yourself blocked again.
Mt
king
(edits)
03:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Nicola Gobbo. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 06:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me make myself clear, I will revert any edit you or User:Garth M make to :
Where you have not discussed it first at the articles talk page. Mt king (edits) 07:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brandonfarris. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Brandonfarris,
A thread's been started on my talkpage concerning your recent edits on Campbell and related topics. I don't have enough time at present to look into the details, but from what I've seen I reckon we might end up with an ANI or DRN discussion to iron things out. If there's any comment you'd like to make before we get to that point, please jump in on my talkpage and let me know your take on the subject. Thanks, Yunshui 雲 水 15:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Nick-D (
talk)
08:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Brandonfarris ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked indefinitely and without warning for reasons that I believe are insufficient to justify it. I think I have added some useful contributions that should be considered in context and not only by administrators also involved in editing the same articles. I was encouraged to use the Talk pages of articles before making changes by Mt and while unsure that this would work, gave it a go. Before that had much chance to work out, I've been blocked. If there's a view that I ought not write about Victorian journalists because I'm not doing a good job at it, I'd be happy to comply although I'm not really sure what the rationale would be. Addressing each point made by Nick-D:
Essentially I think the punishment here greatly outweighs the crime. I acknowledge though that in attempting to combat edits that I thought clearly involved vandalism and sockpuppetry, I engaged in edit warring and also may have in so doing violated the three-revert rule, although I tried not to after it was pointed out to me. I won't do that again and will instead in future try to draw in other users who might be able to help build a consensus around the articles.
I'll comply with the block if that's what is deemed appropriate but I think my errors have been ones of enthusiasm and that I've actually tried to be a keen and avid reader of Wikipedia policies to ensure that I was staying on-side with them.
If unblocked, I'll do better, use the Talk pages more (as I was starting to) and avoid the articles that seem to be keenly protected by the administrator who blocked me. On a positive note, I think I can write reasonably well and had hoped to contribute to many articles about areas of interest (which are much broader than Victorian journalists I promise!) over the next few months while recovering from a serious operation which has kept me in bed and with not much to do other than use my laptop. Whatever the result I wish you all well :-)
Decline reason:
As per my comments below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:45, 13 December 2011 (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.
-- Brandonfarris ( talk) 12:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Brandonfarris ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I accept the edits that have been hitherto objected to were not reasonable and accordingly would accept the following binding edit restrictions: # A topic ban on BLP articles broadly construed for an indefinite duration initially, but subject to review after three months. I will ask Nick-D to conduct this review on his talk page, and/or ask other admins to conduct the review via WP:AN, if he is not available for any reason, but I'll certainly give him first opportunity and let him know of the review should the arise # A topic ban on The Age and Crikey and all related articles broadly construed for three months # Adherence to WP:1RR on all articles for three months # That I immediately seek and actively engage with a mentor. -- Brandonfarris ( talk) 03:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Accept reason:
You appear to have agreed to all the terms proposed by the blocking admin. Welcome back. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
-- Brandonfarris ( talk) 00:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Brandonfarris ( talk) 19:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Mtking, Brandon's BLP problems extend beyond articles on journalists, so those conditions are inadequete. Setting a three month period on the conditions is also not at all sensible or in line with WP:BLP given the degree of the BLP problems here. Nick-D ( talk) 02:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm prepared to unblock you if you agree to the following conditions:
It goes without saying that you should also take extra care with your editing. I find WP:10SIMPLERULES to be a good summary of how people are expected to behave on this website, thought it doesn't have any official standing per-se. I'm going to be out of town for most of the weekend, but I'm sure that another admin will unblock you if you agree to the above. Nick-D ( talk) 10:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=
your acceptance of the conditions}}
to this page - this will automatically list the page at
Requests for unblock, and you'll get an admin over here faster. Good luck with your future editing.
Yunshui
雲
水
14:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Notice: The article you created, Nicola Gobbo, has been proposed for deletion by another user. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
The Age hacking scandal. 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:
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.
Please discuss and agree your edits before making them or you will see yourself blocked again.
Mt
king
(edits)
03:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Nicola Gobbo. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 06:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me make myself clear, I will revert any edit you or User:Garth M make to :
Where you have not discussed it first at the articles talk page. Mt king (edits) 07:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brandonfarris. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Brandonfarris,
A thread's been started on my talkpage concerning your recent edits on Campbell and related topics. I don't have enough time at present to look into the details, but from what I've seen I reckon we might end up with an ANI or DRN discussion to iron things out. If there's any comment you'd like to make before we get to that point, please jump in on my talkpage and let me know your take on the subject. Thanks, Yunshui 雲 水 15:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Nick-D (
talk)
08:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Brandonfarris ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked indefinitely and without warning for reasons that I believe are insufficient to justify it. I think I have added some useful contributions that should be considered in context and not only by administrators also involved in editing the same articles. I was encouraged to use the Talk pages of articles before making changes by Mt and while unsure that this would work, gave it a go. Before that had much chance to work out, I've been blocked. If there's a view that I ought not write about Victorian journalists because I'm not doing a good job at it, I'd be happy to comply although I'm not really sure what the rationale would be. Addressing each point made by Nick-D:
Essentially I think the punishment here greatly outweighs the crime. I acknowledge though that in attempting to combat edits that I thought clearly involved vandalism and sockpuppetry, I engaged in edit warring and also may have in so doing violated the three-revert rule, although I tried not to after it was pointed out to me. I won't do that again and will instead in future try to draw in other users who might be able to help build a consensus around the articles.
I'll comply with the block if that's what is deemed appropriate but I think my errors have been ones of enthusiasm and that I've actually tried to be a keen and avid reader of Wikipedia policies to ensure that I was staying on-side with them.
If unblocked, I'll do better, use the Talk pages more (as I was starting to) and avoid the articles that seem to be keenly protected by the administrator who blocked me. On a positive note, I think I can write reasonably well and had hoped to contribute to many articles about areas of interest (which are much broader than Victorian journalists I promise!) over the next few months while recovering from a serious operation which has kept me in bed and with not much to do other than use my laptop. Whatever the result I wish you all well :-)
Decline reason:
As per my comments below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:45, 13 December 2011 (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.
-- Brandonfarris ( talk) 12:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Brandonfarris ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I accept the edits that have been hitherto objected to were not reasonable and accordingly would accept the following binding edit restrictions: # A topic ban on BLP articles broadly construed for an indefinite duration initially, but subject to review after three months. I will ask Nick-D to conduct this review on his talk page, and/or ask other admins to conduct the review via WP:AN, if he is not available for any reason, but I'll certainly give him first opportunity and let him know of the review should the arise # A topic ban on The Age and Crikey and all related articles broadly construed for three months # Adherence to WP:1RR on all articles for three months # That I immediately seek and actively engage with a mentor. -- Brandonfarris ( talk) 03:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Accept reason:
You appear to have agreed to all the terms proposed by the blocking admin. Welcome back. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
-- Brandonfarris ( talk) 00:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Brandonfarris ( talk) 19:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Mtking, Brandon's BLP problems extend beyond articles on journalists, so those conditions are inadequete. Setting a three month period on the conditions is also not at all sensible or in line with WP:BLP given the degree of the BLP problems here. Nick-D ( talk) 02:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm prepared to unblock you if you agree to the following conditions:
It goes without saying that you should also take extra care with your editing. I find WP:10SIMPLERULES to be a good summary of how people are expected to behave on this website, thought it doesn't have any official standing per-se. I'm going to be out of town for most of the weekend, but I'm sure that another admin will unblock you if you agree to the above. Nick-D ( talk) 10:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=
your acceptance of the conditions}}
to this page - this will automatically list the page at
Requests for unblock, and you'll get an admin over here faster. Good luck with your future editing.
Yunshui
雲
水
14:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Notice: The article you created, Nicola Gobbo, has been proposed for deletion by another user. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |