User talk:Æðð

December 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Bill Clinton. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Daniel (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I made TWO reverts within the last EIGHTEEN hours, one revert very early in the morning before I went to bed, and the fourth revision was well over twenty four hours ago. Gaming the system would be waiting 24 hours to squeeze one more revert in, which isn't even close to what happened. I was acting with no intent to abuse the system whatsoever.--Æðð (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

3RR is not an entitlement to make three reverts per day. Or two. Or even one. I'm not interested in counting reverts and performing time calculations - you yourself in your own words in this very unblock request described your edit warring. It's not your first block for this offence, you should know better. Max Semenik (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The stated reason for the block was violation of the three-revert rule. Not only didn't I violate the 3RR, but I didn't even come close to approaching what would be considered "gaming the system." And if you want to go with edit warring, how could two reverts over an eighteen hour period possibly be considered "warring"? Apparently, it seems as if Wikipedia now has a ONE REVERT rule.--Æðð (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

From your (ahem) history here, it seems you should have a pretty good idea what constitutes edit warring (and that should be the stated reason for your block ... the admin obviously chose the wrong thing, perhaps inadvertently, on the dropdown list). If you have a history like that, then obviously and understandably our tolerance for further such tug-of-war goes waaaay down to that point that yes, for some users (regardless of whether the ArbCom formally imposes this or not) there is a one-revert rule. As WP:3RR clearly states: "any edit warring may lead to sanctions ... The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times" (Emphasis in original). Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Block evasion

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for Block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Per Edit-warring case on 21 December. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

A one-month extension of an already dubious block is absolutely excessive, given that this is a first-time offense, and no attempts were made to repeat the edits I was banned for or edit any of the same pages that were modified by this account, i.e., actual sock puppetry. I was unaware that what I did was against the rules, and most Wikipedia users have made edits with their IP on the side. No abuse was intended, and it won't happen again.--Æðð (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The original block was not at all dubious: you edit-warred, period. You also are aware that a BLOCK applies to you, the person and not the account. You, the person, may not edit Wikipedia during a block. However, you did. It makes no difference that the articles were different - you intentionally broke a key rule that you were aware of. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Now indefinitely blocked for continued sockpuppetry. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]