| This is Beleg Strongbow's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
If I were you, I would stop bragging about how I'm not interested in agreement. This is not likely to reflect well on your propensity to collaborate as an editor. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the friendly advice. :) Please don't misunderstand me: while I realize that you and I are unlikely to agree when working on the same article, I have high hopes that we can still come to a compromise. That's known as "agreeing to disagree" and is akin to "disagreeing without being disagreeable." God bless! -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 20:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You've violated the one-revert-per-day rule, which is laid out in the page's edit notice which you see any time you edit the page. I recommend that you revert yourself to avoid sanction (also because your edit violated our sourcing policy and reverting would just be better). – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks
, I'll be more careful in the future and wait the necessary number of hours before reverting your edits in the future.(Sorry about the sarcasm.) I'll be more careful in the future not to violate 1RR, even if I am reverting in good faith. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 19:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's not the spirit of 1RR; it is not for slowing down the edit war, it is for forcing discussion and thereby determining consensus. You consistently act against consensus and you have stated above your intention to take part in slow-motion edit warring, which is disruptive and leads to being blocked. Binksternet ( talk) 02:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I was being sarcastic just there. As sarcasm is easily misunderstood in print, I will try to avoid using it in the future. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused.
- Ironically, I would agree that in our discussions and efforts at the Maafa 21 article and talk page there have been many violtations of key behavioral policies, such as WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:DNB, etc., but none of the corresponding comments were made by me, with the exception of the three borderline uncivil comments for which I have already apologized.
- -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 12:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Being courteous does not give you a pass for going against consensus. Being curt does not make me wrong in insisting upon following the guidelines for articles. Binksternet ( talk) 14:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Maafa 21 article
Hi Beleg, thanks for your encouraging words. However, please note that I am at the Maafa-article for making it a good article, not because I agree with the movies contents. So please don't be disappointed if the article won't develop in the way you would have liked it. Anyway, best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 13:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- The way I want it to develop is into an NPOV article, nothing more. That has been my position from the beginning. If you can help make that happen, then I will be pleased. Thanks! -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 13:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I userfied your working material on the article's talk page, bringing it to your space here: User:Beleg Strongbow/Maafa 21. The main reason for this action of mine is that the material has been getting no consensus for inclusion, and with it staying on the article's talk page it was serving as an alternate version, a distraction to the public because it is not ready to be seen. You can continue to work on it in private. Binksternet ( talk) 15:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine. I realize that I won't receive either consensus or any more assistance from you on my efforts. I'm just about to post it to the main article anyway. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 15:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Statement of intent to go against consensus, followed by that action. Ish dar ian 03:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Beleg,
- "9. Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.
- 10. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up."
- (I'm sure you know where that is from.)
- Though there may be a less than optimal outcome for you in this particular matter, your work in this project is nevertheless appreciated by your fellow wikipedians.
- -- Shirt58 ( talk) 10:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion on the Noticeboard is gone. What does this mean? -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 21:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- In reference to recent changes I made in the Maafa 21 article, I'm far from done there. The John Birch publication endorsement should be removed in favor of a more mainstream source. The negative criticism is overdone and should be pared down. When you see that much effort being put into establishing the bona fides of the sources it's a sign that folks are trying to "build a case" rather than write an encyclopedic article. I'll take a look at your rewrite when I get a chance, but why not put proposed changes and concerns on the Talk page for Maafa the article? Badmintonhist ( talk) 17:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The negative criticism is shatteringly bad, so how can you characterize it as overdone? If anything, the extremely negative response is subdued in the article. Binksternet ( talk) 17:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest that we repair to the Maafa article's Talk page for any further substantive discussion about the article. I placed my earlier comments here in response to a notice Beleg placed on my Talk page. Badmintonhist ( talk) 21:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Badmintonhist, my rewrite was posted within the Talk page for many months, while I was developing it. Binksternet then removed it to its current location, but a link still exists within the Talk page. You will find there several lengthy discussions, not without many passionate comments. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 21:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The Purple Barnstar | |
| For your fortitude in intrepidly battling the odds until and even after help arrived. Badmintonhist ( talk) 06:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC) |
Is under a 1RR restriction, you just broke it. Please self revert. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
You have been reported to WP:3RRN for violation of 1RR. Feel free to offer your viewpoint at the noticeboard. Binksternet ( talk) 00:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting all administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Beleg Strongbow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been accused of violating 1RR. An administrator has apparently agreed with the accusation and Blocked me for 24-hours. I disagree with the accusation and with the Block because I was not intending to perform two reverts and thought that I was performing only one true revert. What is being called my first revert was a restoration of text that had been agreed upon weeks ago by the editors involved. (See this and this.) I did not realize that restoring this text would be considered my first revert, such that my intentional revert would then be considered a second and consequently be in violation of 1RR. If my previous understanding of 1RR is incorrect, I apologize and will be more careful in the future not to violate it again. It certainly has never been my intention to edit war. Please consider removing the Block. Thank you. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 13:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC) (P.S. If you read through the lengthy NPOV Notice Board discussion cited above, you will also get an idea of the motivation behind Roscelese's and Binksternet's desire to have me blocked, as they have been pushing a POV for nearly a year at the article in question. See Roscelese's gaming of the system here, here and here while the editors were making an effort to come to an NPOV. Notice in particular comments like the following from Roscelese: " while waste-of-time discussion continues, let us try another way of dealing with the FRINGE issue." Her reference to a "waste-of-time discussion" is aimed at the NPOV Notice Board discussion that was not going her way.)
Decline reason:
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.
- I have a few comments to make in response to your request. First, if you read WP:AEBLOCK, you'll note that reversing an AE block can be done only in limited circumstances. Second, although I think the language is midly amgbiguous, I believe as the blocking admin I can unblock you if I wish. Third, as to the substance of what you're saying, even though you've been blocked before (a long time ago) for edit-warring, I'll accept for the time being that you did not understand that your first change was a revert. I started looking at the first link about previous discussions, and the topic became so contentious and so hard to follow, I gave up. I tend to doubt there was any consensus on the issue, but I'll put that aside. Your promise not to violate 1RR again is welcome. However, you really should have stopped there rather than include the P.S. casting aspersions on everyone else; those comments are not constructive and do not bode well for your future edits.
- In any event, if there are other admins who believe I can unblock without risking being decapitated, please express your views here as to the merits of Beleg Strongbow's request.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, Bbb23. I greatly appreciate your acceptance of my good faith editing. Yes, the NPOV discussion was quite lengthy and contentious (though I will not accept any responsibility for those unfortunate facts), but if you go to the bottom, you will see that consensus was eventually (and painfully) achieved. I understand your criticsm of my postscript. I hesitated in including those details and now realize that, however accurate they may be and relevant to the context of my alleged 1RR violation, I probably should have left them out.
- I do still call the violation alleged, because my first revert was in the spirit of exemption 7 of 3RR. Again, if I am wrong, I do apologize and will be more careful in the future.
- A question though: why was I blocked before allowing the other editors and I to discuss my actions? According to the edit warring guidelines, the first step should have been to allow us to "discuss the issue on the talk page." I initiated discussion here, which then continued without me, because I was Blocked. Please explain.
- --
Beleg Strongbow (
talk) 17:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're supposed to discuss the issue before you violate, not after.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Granted, but I didn't realize that I was violating 1RR. My initial "revert" was bringing the article back to what had previously been discussed ( exemption 7 of 3RR). Also, the direction to "discuss the issue on the talk page" (cited above) is within the context of "handling of edit warring behaviors" as opposed to "avoiding edit warring." -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 19:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're supposed to discuss the issue before you violate, not after.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- --
Beleg Strongbow (
talk) 17:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is a message to
Bbb23; without making any pronouncement at all as to the validity or otherwise of the block, any admin reversing an ArbCom block runs a seriously high risk of major mutilation.--
Anthony Bradbury
"talk" 18:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note of caution, Anthony. I vaguely recollect I asked another admin (was it an arbitrator?), and the response was that the blocking admin could unblock. Seriously, the language of AEBLOCK should be clarified on this score.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- The words are "taken by another administrator."(emphasis mine) Bbb23 can accept the unblock request.
NE Ent 19:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's the way I interpret it as well, NE, but I can see the subsequent "Any administrator" phrase being a bit off-putting. Yet, that sentence also says "outside of these circumstances", which refers back to the language above. For Mr. Literal (that's me), I'd like something that hits me over the head like: "The blocking administrator can unblock." I keep picturing a Marie Antoinette "block" with me replacing her. Ouch.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- The words are "taken by another administrator."(emphasis mine) Bbb23 can accept the unblock request.
NE Ent 19:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note of caution, Anthony. I vaguely recollect I asked another admin (was it an arbitrator?), and the response was that the blocking admin could unblock. Seriously, the language of AEBLOCK should be clarified on this score.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is a message to
Bbb23; without making any pronouncement at all as to the validity or otherwise of the block, any admin reversing an ArbCom block runs a seriously high risk of major mutilation.--
Anthony Bradbury
"talk" 18:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Beleg Strongbow, I will unblock you with the following understanding. You understand that you violated WP:1RR on the article. You promise to be more careful in the future. You should not expect that a willingness to discuss your edits justifies edit-warring, violating 1RR, or violating WP:3RR. Please respond; thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, Beleg, you were responding very quickly and now nothing (perhaps it's nighttime where you are). Your block will expire in a few hours. I'd feel bad if you weren't able to agree to the conditions before the expiration, but there's not much I can do unless you respond.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that Bbb23 can lift his own AE block if he wants to, but it seems that Beleg is unlikely to respond in the short time before the block runs out. We can just let it expire. I am not a fan of lifting correctly-imposed AE blocks for 1RR violation in any case. Such blocks are usually short. Beleg's statement above in his own defence doesn't include anything that is usually found persuasive by reviewing admins. Though he might seem to be apologizing for his reverts, his actual comments don't seem apologetic or to suggest he will act differently in the future. He asked, "why was I blocked before allowing the other editors and I to discuss my actions?" The answer is obvious. You are expected to discuss first and revert later on any article subject to 1RR. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ed, I suppose that, as you express your apprehensions, you are speaking from experience and would be correct in most cases. While your discouraging words (i.e. assuming that I will continue to violate WP:policy) may represent the typical behavior of 3RR violators, they certainly don't represent my past behavior, particularly my behavior at the Maafa 21 article.
- My "actual comments don't seem...to suggest [I] will act differently in the future"? Of course I won't act differently, as I will occasionally make mistakes.
- "You are expected to discuss first and revert later on any article subject to 1RR"? Where's that policy, please? Whatever happened to WP:BRD?
- Bbb23, considering the confusion expressed above concerning the correct interpretation of Blocking/Unblocking, it's rather ironic that I have been penalized for my interpretation of WP:3RR. No, I'm still not convinced that I violated 1RR. I gave you and others the opportunity to explain why Exemption 7 does not apply to my original "revert," but none of you made even an attempt, instead excusing yourselves from that discussion by simply declaring that it is obvious. Well, it's not. You all also chose to ignore the clear instructions for allowing discussion to take place before penalizing the alleged offender.
- I will be more careful in the future, as I have stated multiple times, but I will not kowtow to inaccurate interpretations of standing policy. That being said, I do assume in good faith that it was simply a difference in interpretation and nothing more.
- --
Beleg Strongbow (
talk) 15:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't even notice the BLP exemption you claimed; it doesn't apply. It's almost never a good exemption to rely on except in clear and egregious cases. The other part has already been explained to you; you just don't want to hear it. Finally, I'm not taking action yet, but your current conduct on the article may lead to a much longer block (you've restored the edit you made that triggered the previous block).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- You "didn't even notice the BLP exemption" that I cited three times???
- I always "want to hear" sincere explanations, which is why I asked for one. Please WP:AGF.
- Yes, I restored the edit and for the same reason I restored it before--it's the one agreed upon within an NPOV Notice Board discussion (again, cited multiple times). I thought the Block was a result of an alleged 1RR violation, not because you had a problem with the content of my edit. Please explain. To avoid further unwanted trouble with admins and to demonstrate my good faith intentions, I have just self-reverted.
- -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 22:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
You have made two changes at Maafa 21 in less than 24 hours. This one was put up by you thinking incorrectly that you had consensus, but it was reverted by me. Badmintonhist subsequently made a change that appeared workable to me but you reverted before I had a chance to see it and comment positively on it.
I hold that your first change is a reversion as it was edit warring to return to your preferred version, wording which removes the Katz quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway." You removed that exact quote here on March 27, here on March 28 (with the edit summary of "Spelling", probably an edit conflict), here again on March 28, here on April 3, and finallly here on April 4 less than 24 hours later. The text you are warring over is the same text each time, that is, the April 3 edit is a reversion, not a "recommended update" as you put in your edit summary.
I offer you the opportunity to revert yourself to preserve 1RR. Binksternet ( talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- 1RR prohibits reverting an individual's edits more than once within 24 hours. The edits that I made on April 3rd and 4th affected the updates of two separate editors not of a single editor. All the other diffs you are offering are bothersome to you because you didn't like them, even though they were all made in good faith and as part of ongoing disuscussions on the Talk page, as you well know. Please stop being disruptive by reverting edits without prior discussion. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 13:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
You have been reported to WP:3RRN for violation of 1RR. Feel free to offer your viewpoint at the noticeboard. Binksternet ( talk) 15:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have responded. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 16:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
3RR Notice Board Conclusion: No action was taken, though warning and advice were offered.
- I'm sure that Beleg hasn't been purposely trying to violate any rules. He is rather tenacious, however, on this particular article. If my latest edit of Esther Katz's reaction to the film is reasonably acceptable to all interested parties why don't we use it and move on? Badmintonhist ( talk) 21:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Apparntly Beleg took my suggestion and will hopefully let this lie or persue a different form of DR vs walking the EW line. Bink, since you started this thread, I don't think anyone will object to you archiving it with an appropriate closing summary.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC) 
Note. Based on the self-revert by Beleg, I'm going to close this without sanctions. That said, Beleg's editing history has been disruptive. They shouldn't expect leniency if this recurs.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 01:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
-- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 14:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Beleg, and the encouragement. I probably should get away from Wikpedia for a while, refocus on my music . . . maybe write some poetry. I've always liked Joyce Kilmer's work. How's this for the start of a poem?
- I think that I shall never see
- an editor competent as Roscelee
Well even if you don't like it, Best Regards in any case. Badmintonhist ( talk) 02:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nice. I can't say that I blame you, but chalk another victory up to the leftist extremist bullies. I'm not actively editing right now either, but I'm still keeping an eye on certain articles. Hopefully you can do the same. God bless! -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 13:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
| This is Beleg Strongbow's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
If I were you, I would stop bragging about how I'm not interested in agreement. This is not likely to reflect well on your propensity to collaborate as an editor. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the friendly advice. :) Please don't misunderstand me: while I realize that you and I are unlikely to agree when working on the same article, I have high hopes that we can still come to a compromise. That's known as "agreeing to disagree" and is akin to "disagreeing without being disagreeable." God bless! -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 20:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You've violated the one-revert-per-day rule, which is laid out in the page's edit notice which you see any time you edit the page. I recommend that you revert yourself to avoid sanction (also because your edit violated our sourcing policy and reverting would just be better). – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks
, I'll be more careful in the future and wait the necessary number of hours before reverting your edits in the future.(Sorry about the sarcasm.) I'll be more careful in the future not to violate 1RR, even if I am reverting in good faith. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 19:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's not the spirit of 1RR; it is not for slowing down the edit war, it is for forcing discussion and thereby determining consensus. You consistently act against consensus and you have stated above your intention to take part in slow-motion edit warring, which is disruptive and leads to being blocked. Binksternet ( talk) 02:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I was being sarcastic just there. As sarcasm is easily misunderstood in print, I will try to avoid using it in the future. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused.
- Ironically, I would agree that in our discussions and efforts at the Maafa 21 article and talk page there have been many violtations of key behavioral policies, such as WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:DNB, etc., but none of the corresponding comments were made by me, with the exception of the three borderline uncivil comments for which I have already apologized.
- -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 12:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Being courteous does not give you a pass for going against consensus. Being curt does not make me wrong in insisting upon following the guidelines for articles. Binksternet ( talk) 14:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Maafa 21 article
Hi Beleg, thanks for your encouraging words. However, please note that I am at the Maafa-article for making it a good article, not because I agree with the movies contents. So please don't be disappointed if the article won't develop in the way you would have liked it. Anyway, best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 13:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- The way I want it to develop is into an NPOV article, nothing more. That has been my position from the beginning. If you can help make that happen, then I will be pleased. Thanks! -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 13:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I userfied your working material on the article's talk page, bringing it to your space here: User:Beleg Strongbow/Maafa 21. The main reason for this action of mine is that the material has been getting no consensus for inclusion, and with it staying on the article's talk page it was serving as an alternate version, a distraction to the public because it is not ready to be seen. You can continue to work on it in private. Binksternet ( talk) 15:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine. I realize that I won't receive either consensus or any more assistance from you on my efforts. I'm just about to post it to the main article anyway. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 15:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Statement of intent to go against consensus, followed by that action. Ish dar ian 03:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Beleg,
- "9. Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.
- 10. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up."
- (I'm sure you know where that is from.)
- Though there may be a less than optimal outcome for you in this particular matter, your work in this project is nevertheless appreciated by your fellow wikipedians.
- -- Shirt58 ( talk) 10:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion on the Noticeboard is gone. What does this mean? -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 21:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- In reference to recent changes I made in the Maafa 21 article, I'm far from done there. The John Birch publication endorsement should be removed in favor of a more mainstream source. The negative criticism is overdone and should be pared down. When you see that much effort being put into establishing the bona fides of the sources it's a sign that folks are trying to "build a case" rather than write an encyclopedic article. I'll take a look at your rewrite when I get a chance, but why not put proposed changes and concerns on the Talk page for Maafa the article? Badmintonhist ( talk) 17:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The negative criticism is shatteringly bad, so how can you characterize it as overdone? If anything, the extremely negative response is subdued in the article. Binksternet ( talk) 17:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest that we repair to the Maafa article's Talk page for any further substantive discussion about the article. I placed my earlier comments here in response to a notice Beleg placed on my Talk page. Badmintonhist ( talk) 21:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Badmintonhist, my rewrite was posted within the Talk page for many months, while I was developing it. Binksternet then removed it to its current location, but a link still exists within the Talk page. You will find there several lengthy discussions, not without many passionate comments. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 21:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
|
|
The Purple Barnstar | |
| For your fortitude in intrepidly battling the odds until and even after help arrived. Badmintonhist ( talk) 06:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC) |
Is under a 1RR restriction, you just broke it. Please self revert. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
You have been reported to WP:3RRN for violation of 1RR. Feel free to offer your viewpoint at the noticeboard. Binksternet ( talk) 00:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting all administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Beleg Strongbow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been accused of violating 1RR. An administrator has apparently agreed with the accusation and Blocked me for 24-hours. I disagree with the accusation and with the Block because I was not intending to perform two reverts and thought that I was performing only one true revert. What is being called my first revert was a restoration of text that had been agreed upon weeks ago by the editors involved. (See this and this.) I did not realize that restoring this text would be considered my first revert, such that my intentional revert would then be considered a second and consequently be in violation of 1RR. If my previous understanding of 1RR is incorrect, I apologize and will be more careful in the future not to violate it again. It certainly has never been my intention to edit war. Please consider removing the Block. Thank you. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 13:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC) (P.S. If you read through the lengthy NPOV Notice Board discussion cited above, you will also get an idea of the motivation behind Roscelese's and Binksternet's desire to have me blocked, as they have been pushing a POV for nearly a year at the article in question. See Roscelese's gaming of the system here, here and here while the editors were making an effort to come to an NPOV. Notice in particular comments like the following from Roscelese: " while waste-of-time discussion continues, let us try another way of dealing with the FRINGE issue." Her reference to a "waste-of-time discussion" is aimed at the NPOV Notice Board discussion that was not going her way.)
Decline reason:
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.
- I have a few comments to make in response to your request. First, if you read WP:AEBLOCK, you'll note that reversing an AE block can be done only in limited circumstances. Second, although I think the language is midly amgbiguous, I believe as the blocking admin I can unblock you if I wish. Third, as to the substance of what you're saying, even though you've been blocked before (a long time ago) for edit-warring, I'll accept for the time being that you did not understand that your first change was a revert. I started looking at the first link about previous discussions, and the topic became so contentious and so hard to follow, I gave up. I tend to doubt there was any consensus on the issue, but I'll put that aside. Your promise not to violate 1RR again is welcome. However, you really should have stopped there rather than include the P.S. casting aspersions on everyone else; those comments are not constructive and do not bode well for your future edits.
- In any event, if there are other admins who believe I can unblock without risking being decapitated, please express your views here as to the merits of Beleg Strongbow's request.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, Bbb23. I greatly appreciate your acceptance of my good faith editing. Yes, the NPOV discussion was quite lengthy and contentious (though I will not accept any responsibility for those unfortunate facts), but if you go to the bottom, you will see that consensus was eventually (and painfully) achieved. I understand your criticsm of my postscript. I hesitated in including those details and now realize that, however accurate they may be and relevant to the context of my alleged 1RR violation, I probably should have left them out.
- I do still call the violation alleged, because my first revert was in the spirit of exemption 7 of 3RR. Again, if I am wrong, I do apologize and will be more careful in the future.
- A question though: why was I blocked before allowing the other editors and I to discuss my actions? According to the edit warring guidelines, the first step should have been to allow us to "discuss the issue on the talk page." I initiated discussion here, which then continued without me, because I was Blocked. Please explain.
- --
Beleg Strongbow (
talk) 17:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're supposed to discuss the issue before you violate, not after.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Granted, but I didn't realize that I was violating 1RR. My initial "revert" was bringing the article back to what had previously been discussed ( exemption 7 of 3RR). Also, the direction to "discuss the issue on the talk page" (cited above) is within the context of "handling of edit warring behaviors" as opposed to "avoiding edit warring." -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 19:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're supposed to discuss the issue before you violate, not after.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- --
Beleg Strongbow (
talk) 17:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is a message to
Bbb23; without making any pronouncement at all as to the validity or otherwise of the block, any admin reversing an ArbCom block runs a seriously high risk of major mutilation.--
Anthony Bradbury
"talk" 18:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note of caution, Anthony. I vaguely recollect I asked another admin (was it an arbitrator?), and the response was that the blocking admin could unblock. Seriously, the language of AEBLOCK should be clarified on this score.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- The words are "taken by another administrator."(emphasis mine) Bbb23 can accept the unblock request.
NE Ent 19:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's the way I interpret it as well, NE, but I can see the subsequent "Any administrator" phrase being a bit off-putting. Yet, that sentence also says "outside of these circumstances", which refers back to the language above. For Mr. Literal (that's me), I'd like something that hits me over the head like: "The blocking administrator can unblock." I keep picturing a Marie Antoinette "block" with me replacing her. Ouch.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- The words are "taken by another administrator."(emphasis mine) Bbb23 can accept the unblock request.
NE Ent 19:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note of caution, Anthony. I vaguely recollect I asked another admin (was it an arbitrator?), and the response was that the blocking admin could unblock. Seriously, the language of AEBLOCK should be clarified on this score.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is a message to
Bbb23; without making any pronouncement at all as to the validity or otherwise of the block, any admin reversing an ArbCom block runs a seriously high risk of major mutilation.--
Anthony Bradbury
"talk" 18:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Beleg Strongbow, I will unblock you with the following understanding. You understand that you violated WP:1RR on the article. You promise to be more careful in the future. You should not expect that a willingness to discuss your edits justifies edit-warring, violating 1RR, or violating WP:3RR. Please respond; thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, Beleg, you were responding very quickly and now nothing (perhaps it's nighttime where you are). Your block will expire in a few hours. I'd feel bad if you weren't able to agree to the conditions before the expiration, but there's not much I can do unless you respond.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that Bbb23 can lift his own AE block if he wants to, but it seems that Beleg is unlikely to respond in the short time before the block runs out. We can just let it expire. I am not a fan of lifting correctly-imposed AE blocks for 1RR violation in any case. Such blocks are usually short. Beleg's statement above in his own defence doesn't include anything that is usually found persuasive by reviewing admins. Though he might seem to be apologizing for his reverts, his actual comments don't seem apologetic or to suggest he will act differently in the future. He asked, "why was I blocked before allowing the other editors and I to discuss my actions?" The answer is obvious. You are expected to discuss first and revert later on any article subject to 1RR. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ed, I suppose that, as you express your apprehensions, you are speaking from experience and would be correct in most cases. While your discouraging words (i.e. assuming that I will continue to violate WP:policy) may represent the typical behavior of 3RR violators, they certainly don't represent my past behavior, particularly my behavior at the Maafa 21 article.
- My "actual comments don't seem...to suggest [I] will act differently in the future"? Of course I won't act differently, as I will occasionally make mistakes.
- "You are expected to discuss first and revert later on any article subject to 1RR"? Where's that policy, please? Whatever happened to WP:BRD?
- Bbb23, considering the confusion expressed above concerning the correct interpretation of Blocking/Unblocking, it's rather ironic that I have been penalized for my interpretation of WP:3RR. No, I'm still not convinced that I violated 1RR. I gave you and others the opportunity to explain why Exemption 7 does not apply to my original "revert," but none of you made even an attempt, instead excusing yourselves from that discussion by simply declaring that it is obvious. Well, it's not. You all also chose to ignore the clear instructions for allowing discussion to take place before penalizing the alleged offender.
- I will be more careful in the future, as I have stated multiple times, but I will not kowtow to inaccurate interpretations of standing policy. That being said, I do assume in good faith that it was simply a difference in interpretation and nothing more.
- --
Beleg Strongbow (
talk) 15:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't even notice the BLP exemption you claimed; it doesn't apply. It's almost never a good exemption to rely on except in clear and egregious cases. The other part has already been explained to you; you just don't want to hear it. Finally, I'm not taking action yet, but your current conduct on the article may lead to a much longer block (you've restored the edit you made that triggered the previous block).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- You "didn't even notice the BLP exemption" that I cited three times???
- I always "want to hear" sincere explanations, which is why I asked for one. Please WP:AGF.
- Yes, I restored the edit and for the same reason I restored it before--it's the one agreed upon within an NPOV Notice Board discussion (again, cited multiple times). I thought the Block was a result of an alleged 1RR violation, not because you had a problem with the content of my edit. Please explain. To avoid further unwanted trouble with admins and to demonstrate my good faith intentions, I have just self-reverted.
- -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 22:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
You have made two changes at Maafa 21 in less than 24 hours. This one was put up by you thinking incorrectly that you had consensus, but it was reverted by me. Badmintonhist subsequently made a change that appeared workable to me but you reverted before I had a chance to see it and comment positively on it.
I hold that your first change is a reversion as it was edit warring to return to your preferred version, wording which removes the Katz quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway." You removed that exact quote here on March 27, here on March 28 (with the edit summary of "Spelling", probably an edit conflict), here again on March 28, here on April 3, and finallly here on April 4 less than 24 hours later. The text you are warring over is the same text each time, that is, the April 3 edit is a reversion, not a "recommended update" as you put in your edit summary.
I offer you the opportunity to revert yourself to preserve 1RR. Binksternet ( talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- 1RR prohibits reverting an individual's edits more than once within 24 hours. The edits that I made on April 3rd and 4th affected the updates of two separate editors not of a single editor. All the other diffs you are offering are bothersome to you because you didn't like them, even though they were all made in good faith and as part of ongoing disuscussions on the Talk page, as you well know. Please stop being disruptive by reverting edits without prior discussion. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 13:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
You have been reported to WP:3RRN for violation of 1RR. Feel free to offer your viewpoint at the noticeboard. Binksternet ( talk) 15:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have responded. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 16:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
3RR Notice Board Conclusion: No action was taken, though warning and advice were offered.
- I'm sure that Beleg hasn't been purposely trying to violate any rules. He is rather tenacious, however, on this particular article. If my latest edit of Esther Katz's reaction to the film is reasonably acceptable to all interested parties why don't we use it and move on? Badmintonhist ( talk) 21:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Apparntly Beleg took my suggestion and will hopefully let this lie or persue a different form of DR vs walking the EW line. Bink, since you started this thread, I don't think anyone will object to you archiving it with an appropriate closing summary.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC) - Note. Based on the self-revert by Beleg, I'm going to close this without sanctions. That said, Beleg's editing history has been disruptive. They shouldn't expect leniency if this recurs.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 01:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
-- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 14:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Beleg, and the encouragement. I probably should get away from Wikpedia for a while, refocus on my music . . . maybe write some poetry. I've always liked Joyce Kilmer's work. How's this for the start of a poem?
- I think that I shall never see
- an editor competent as Roscelee
Well even if you don't like it, Best Regards in any case. Badmintonhist ( talk) 02:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nice. I can't say that I blame you, but chalk another victory up to the leftist extremist bullies. I'm not actively editing right now either, but I'm still keeping an eye on certain articles. Hopefully you can do the same. God bless! -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 13:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)