User talk:Mongobongohongo

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).

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

Request reason:

Bit confused by this one, I returned after a (admittedly deserved) block and proceeded to clean up the kit manufacturers on the article Hull City A.F.C. as well as pose a question on the talk page. I fail to see how this makes me a "vandalism only" account? No message was left on my talk page so as you can imagine I'm in the dark a bit here. Any help/guidance would be appreciated. Thanks Mongobongohongo (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If for nothing else, the fact that it appears you have no re-added the word "inexplicably" 5 times to the same article, contrary to WP:CONSENSUS is enough to convince me that the core concept of Wikipedia is being ignored. We have a concept of bold, revert, discuss it's not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRRD. As such, the re-addition - besides being against consensus - is original research, and as it appears to be regarding a specific person, could be considered vandalism and/or contrary to the WP:BLP policy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:36, 14 January 2013 (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.

The above statement is a lie following the block release the user made the same POV/Vandalism edits for which he was blocked and he received a warning from the bot which he removed. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that edit is relevant to the article, I have tried talking to other editors about it, but they are merely deleting my comments on their talk pages and reporting me for "vandalism" (which it isn't). As far as I was aware, it is up to the entire community to keep Wikipedia articles accurate, so why this "DUCKISJAMMY" person feels it OK just to keep his/her edits and nobody else's is beyond me. I deleted the "warning" from the bot as I felt it was given incorrectly, so I reported the bot as it suggested. I feel I can help Wikipedia, especially in football sections. I would appreciate another chance and an adult discussion over the Hull City A.F.C. article with other editors. Mongobongohongo (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have now further lied, your post on the Hull City A.F.C. talk page was about the third Kit, you never made any attempt to discuss the edit in the Top flight football (2008–2010) section about the inclusion of the word "inexplicably". You were informed the edit was in violation of WP:POV so it wasn't relevant (as you suggested above) but you continued to re-add it which is considered vandalism. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the post on the talk page was regarding this, I attempted to contact the editor through their talk page, which was ignored. I'm happy to concede to not going about things the accepted way, but please do not accuse me of lying on this, as this is not the case. With regards to the contentious edit, I now realise I was wrong to add it the way I did, but I do feel the "Unexpectedness" of the event should be included if I can manage to source it. Mongobongohongo (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Having read the below comments, I accept I was in the wrong. As only one person (at the time) appeared to disagree with my edit, I figured "Consensus" was not an issue, and indeed, a further comment in the article regarding the appointment of Dowie appears to be in a similar vein to mine regarding the sacking of Brown. As I said, I can see I was in the wrong and I misinterpreted the reverting of my edits as "Trolling" rather than constructive. I would like to be unblocked, because as I say, I feel I can contribute and it would be a shame if I was blocked for this misunderstanding of the rules. I know I shouldn't come up with any "deals" or "plea bargains", but is it not possible for my block to be given a week or so rather than an indefinite block? I apologise if this is unacceptable, and if you feel an indefinite ban is necessary then so be it.

Accept reason:

As you've answered my question and appear to be serious, I've reduced the block to a week from the original date. And if you get stuck or have problems finding consensus, ask others for help before you're dragged into conflicts! Bjelleklang - talk 09:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this new unblocked request also be rejected the user still hasn't grasped WP:POV as he indicated above he now wants to include "Unexpectedness". Mongobongohongo has stated that he tried to discuss it with User:Mattythewhite, who is the editor who initially reverted him but that is also untrue see here & here. He just demanded that Matty stop reverting him, that is not an attempt to discuss. He has now lied multiple times what's to say he is not lying in his promises in this unblock request. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My response was borne out of frustration from not being given a reason for the revert initially. Please stop using the term "Lying" as it is strong and not in the slightest bit accurate. The sacking of Phil Brown was unexpected at the time, that's not a POV issue, just stating that it was "unexpected". As I said, I'm willing to discuss it though. I do not mind that you are disagreeing with me, but please stop constantly accusing me of "lying" as I don't believe that is fair. Mongobongohongo (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offer[edit]

Here's my offer based on the unblock request above: I will reduce the block to a week, if you can provide me with an idea of what you plan to do when unblocked.

How and what do you plan to contribute?
How will you avoid content disputes?
If you are unable to avoid a dispute, how will you resolve it?

If you end up in a similar conflict where you ignore consensus or add OR to articles for the coming months it goes without saying that you will be indef blocked again. If you're serious about contributing to Wikipedia, I also suggest that you try to find a mentor who can help you. Bjelleklang - talk 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to respond. Though I am interested in football, my main interest is professional wrestling, and I would love to "flesh out" older PPV articles. I will avoid content disputes by sticking to the "Be bold. Revert. Discuss" protocol, and will try to stick to the general consensus when necessary, even if it is not what I agree with. Again, thank you. Mongobongohongo (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a reasonable request, and evidence that the user has some idea about consensus. I'm willing to unblock, on a last chance basis, if the blocking admin has no objections. I'll drop a note on their talk page. In the meantime, please be patient. Thanks. An optimist on the run! 08:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the block to a week from the original blocking date. Please keep in mind what User:Optimist on the run says above, this is likely to be your last chance so avoid being bold for a while and ask for help if you're stuck. You can also try getting a mentor at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. Bjelleklang - talk 09:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. Mongobongohongo (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]