User talk:Routerone

Caution[edit]

Calling an admin a "disruptive editor" might not be your best course of action. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duke53 is not an admin. Routerone (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you zapped the admin's comments with the same sweeping comment. It's best to keep things on the article talk page until agreement can be worked out. And if someone posts a warning you consider patronizing, just ignore it. But be careful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The admin comments being removed was a mistake. I overlooked them and didnt mean it in removing Duke's post. Routerone (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied[edit]

But on my own talk page. I just wanted to make sure we don't play talk page tag. :) - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

noindex[edit]

Context: [1], [2]: Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is correct that the noindex tag should remain on your userspace essays- see WP:REMOVED. It's actually debateable if these essays meet WP:FAKEARTICLE or WP:UPNO. In other words, they aren't intended to become articles, right? tedder (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont intend them to be articles, no. Routerone (See here!) 20:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the essays being there, but others may. At the very least you should re-add the noindex tag, and I would strongly recommend changing your signature from pointing to it, as that draws attention to pages that are WP:UPNO. It's your own choice, of course. tedder (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can re-add the NOINDEX tag, why would it come up on google anyway? Nonetheless. I'd prefer to keep the signature bit for now. Routerone (See here!) 20:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replacing the tag, but I also think your sig's a bad idea. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:REMOVED#On others' user pages says that the NOINDEX should remain during discussion, I don't really see why it is needed permanently. The page clearly indicates that it is an essay. However, it does seem to fall under WP:UPNO#Excessive unrelated content; it doesn't really have much to do with building an encyclopedia. See also WP:NOTWEBHOST. I would recommend that Routerone save his essay and possibly post it elsewhere on the web if he so chooses. I'll run this through WP:AfD in a couple days if it hasn't been done yet. ...comments? ~BF izz 23:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Book of Mormon also start out in agate type and gradually shrink to footnote size? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bfizz- ignoring the UPNO issue, I don't think you are reading the noindex guideline the same way that I am. I'm parsing it like this: "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user ... added to user pages and subpages under this guideline (except with agreement or by consensus)". In other words, noindex should be used on user pages, but isn't needed on user talk pages. tedder (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the policy around noindex to be rather unclear, so have started a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:User pages#NOINDEX situations unclear. I copied most of your tedder's latest comment here, but tried to keep that discussion detached from this incident. Routerone, I am still going to WP:MFD (not AfD, sorry for the mixup) your subpage, based on the policies I cited before. I hope you don't perceive this as ill will, because it's not. ...comments? ~BF izz 04:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not remove the noindex tag again. See WP:REMOVED which lists this as something you should not remove. Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Routerone/Why its true[edit]

User:Routerone/Why its true, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Routerone/Why its true and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Routerone/Why its true during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ...comments? ~BF izz 04:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm not nominating your "paradise of skepticism" essay because it is directly relevant to Wikipedia. ...comments? ~BF izz 04:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, you might want to consider modifying or deleting that essay as well, so that it doesn't come across as an "attack page". Other editors may send it through an MFD if they feel it is offensive. ...comments? ~BF izz 19:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Routerone/A paradise of skepticism[edit]

User:Routerone/A paradise of skepticism, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Routerone/A paradise of skepticism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Routerone/A paradise of skepticism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Willking1979 (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Routerone, did you request the page's deletion? That's what the MFD page says, but I see no comment from you saying that. It seems odd to me that you would delete it, since about 1/2 the people in that discussion agreed that the page could be kept. ...comments? ~BF izz 05:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for the page deletion yes. I realised it would be wiser to create a wikia wiki to host my content [3], and thus I can still promote it on my userpage and its content will not come under attack by wikipedia editors. I also re-created the other page that was deleted there. Routerone (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

I strongly feel that the wisest thing for you to do would be to stay entirely away from Duke53's user and user talk pages. Your recent actions at his talk page seem to be more provocative than constructive. I think you will simply make things worse by taking the approach you've chosen. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back.[edit]

Hey Routerone,

Good to see you stepping back into the fray. I've been following the article and seem to be confused about how it keeps changing without me knowing. Is it not Wiki policy that edits be discussed in the discussion page first (or at least following)? How does one go about being alerted to changes as they occur. Any insights into John Foxe's Fanny Alger obsession? He seemed to have mellowed for a bit and been swinging to slightly balanced and then he drags this one out. Is this his past M.O. or or are the moments of 'balance' merely strategic? And then there's COgden. I made the mistake of questioning his religion (which I see may be bad Wiki form). But his positions on Joseph Smith's history look nothing like the positions I have seen from any Mormons I know (except for the ones who say that are Mormons who have now found Jesus). Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Joseph Smith, Jr.[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:John Foxe reported by User:Routerone (Result: Both 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not edit warring and did not violate WP:3RR. I dicussed and justified each of my changes on the talkpage. I feel this block is unjust considering I stepped aside editing the page and drew up a report about the conflict instead. I did not battle or continue on reverting, whereas the other editor did. This block is unjust and unecessary. Routerone (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You clearly were edit-warring, especially based on the tone of your edit summaries. You did the right thing by reporting the other editor to 3RR; you did the wrong thing by reverting back to your preferred version - this is textbook edit-warring. During this brief block, you may wish to review WP:BRD, WP:DR, and WP:EW. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:06, 26 May 2011 (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.

Religion categories[edit]

Hello. Please would you have a look at WP:BLPCAT, in reference to your recent addition of a religion category to Phil Cave. Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons requires that religion categories should not be included unless the person has self-identified with the religious affiliation in question, and their belief is relevant to their public life or notability, and reliable published sources cited in the subject's article verify this. In accordance with BLPCAT, I've removed the category from Phil Cave's page. Please feel free to re-add it, in compliance with the above policy. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring[edit]

Please cease edits to the lede of Joseph Smith, Jr. immediately. tedder (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for chronic edit warring on LDS articles. I watched the effort to deal with you with a short block recently with some interest to see whether another warning shot would do any good. Alas, it did not. I see no reason to believe that you will ever be capable of collaborative editing without edit warring. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 02:17, 2 June 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not believe an indefinite block is by any means justified. This "edit warrring" would not be occuring if User:John Foxe stopped every single attempt to edit the disputed articles. I have been blocked indefinitely the trouble this editor is causing, yet he has performed 6 reverts in 48 hours on the same page and is getting off clean without even a block! [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Joseph_Smith,_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=432085238]. Also I was told to stop reverting and stopped, I have not broken WP:3RR and if you see here attempted to discuss my changes on the talkpage and gained a rational to do so [25], [26]. This was by all means a completely irrational block, the other editor is causing the trouble and I have justified my changes and not broken the three revert rule, so how on earth does this warrant an indefinite block? I am not the editor who has reverted nearly every edit on the disputed page for the past 3 years! and yet escapes with no block and has his WP:3RR cast down without saction (despite 6RR!)[27].I request justice be brought to the more serially offending editor and I request that this indefinite block be removed or at least scaled down. This is not justice or equality on the means of what has actually happened. I urge a major reconisderation on this case. An instant indefinite block on one of the editors does not end the dispute. Routerone (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

(1) "This edit warrring would not be occuring if..." misses the point. Edit warring is not acceptable, whether or not you think you were right to edit war. (2) Read WP:NOTTHEM. (3) After the number of blocks for edit warring you have had surely you must have read the policy on edit warring, in which case you must know that "I have not broken WP:3RR" is not a defence. It is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking that rule. (4) It is entirely clear from what you say that you will be likely to continue to edit war if unblocked, as you do not accept that there is any fault in what you have done. (4) Considering your prolonged history of edit warring, being warned, and being blocked, it does not seem that you are likely to change, and so an indefinite block is the only reasonable way to prevent you from wasting yet more of our time. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2011 (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.

That "prophet" stuff is outrageously one-sided. You need to include that many mainstream Christians regard him as a charlatan. Or more to the point, a humbug. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not one sided. Muhammad is presented as a "prophet" by both non believers and believers, and is respected as such even though he is depsised by many. Although you're not allowed to offend muslims are you? Routerone (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't call him anything except "Muhammad" (note the lack of "PBUH"). He's the founder of Islam, like Smith is the founder of Mormonism. When Mormonism has been around for a thousand years, maybe you can call Smith a "prophet". For now, he's a humbug. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth should time periods matter? At the end of the day I know and respect Joseph Smith as a prophet, it is not "one sided" to be entitled to that viewpoint and have some endorsement of that very viewpoint when people are attempting to use this website to effectively demonize him as much as they can and twist the facts about his life. He is a figure with growing significance around the world and millions and millions of followers. I don't care if it was yesterday or 1000 years ago, he is known as a prophet and should be saw as such whether someone believes in him or not. Just like in Islam. Routerone (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism is a pseudo-Christian cult. There's no getting around that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you're appearing on a blocked editor's page to tell them tactlessly that their religious beliefs are wrong. That can't help to improve the encyclopedia or encourage Routerone to take a more collaborative approach. If you're not going to try to help resolve the conflict, please stay away from it. alanyst 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me back that. Bugs, please stay away from this page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. Baseball Bugs, such conduct is utterly disruptive, and if I see it again, I'll block you for harrassment. Sandstein 06:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

It's been a few days now. I have took the time to cool down and think about this properly. I wish to be unblocked and contribute positively. I wish to make the concession of not editing the article without consent or engaging in any form of reverting activity. I do believe an indefinite block was harsh and over the top considering I ceased edit warring at the warning; and I would like a chance to show I can do something constructive on this website. I really would like an end to this indefinite block please. Routerone (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I expect this to be a case of giving someone enough rope to hang himself, but I will grant the unblock. Please remember that Wikipedia is not an experiment in virtual social justice, it's an encyclopedia. Every moment that any admin has to waste on these kind of things detracts from the actual goal. I'll be watching John Foxe more closely in the future, but you will have to live or die by your own actions. You've agreed to a 0RR rule, and you will have to stick to it. Remember that returning any section of the article to any previous version is a revert, and that you have not been given any vandalism exception. If you ever return a piece of any article related to Mormonism to an earlier state for any reason, you will be blocked, no matter the provocation.—Kww(talk) 13:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you agree to adhere to a zero-revert-policy for any page or edit related to Mormonism as a condition of being unblocked. That means that if you ever revert any Mormonism-related edit again, for any reason, your indefinite block will be reinstated. Please tell us whether you agree to this or not. Sandstein 19:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course I will accept that. But I would like User:John Foxe to be kept greater tabs on please. He has reverted the same pages far more times than me and has not recieved any block whatsoever. I am not going for WP:NOTTHEM in mentioning this, as I promise I will not revert anything or engage in edit warring myself and I do anknowledge I broken the rules on this page. However, I am not the sole problem in regards to this page. So yes I will accept that deal, but I would like the other editor involved to be kept greater tabs on and kept from making mass reverts at the same time. I will not revert, but he is likely to continue unnoticed. Routerone (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No admin is likely to unblock you if your offer is conditioned on restrictions being applied to someone else. Please agree to accept the zero-revert policy with no conditions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not challenge my own restrictions nor did I ask to apply the same restrictions to anyone else. I agreed there to not revert and I will not revert I have no issues with that. I am just pointing out it is unjustified User:John Foxe is allowed to rack up to 5 and 6RR as much as he wants and recieve nothing for it, he seems to be allowed to revert anything at anytime. This is not blaming anyone else or challenging my own conditions, nor do I justify myself. I am merely seeking for application justice here on wikipedia. I will not revert anymore I repeat, but this editor seems to be allowed to and he will continue to do so. I was blocked indefinetely, he recieved nothing for 6 reverts in 48 hours. Is that justice? Routerone (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but we're discussing your block here, no one else's. The conduct of others can be raised at WP:AN3 or other appropriate fora. I'm asking the blocking admin to comment about whether they are willing to lift the block on the condition of 0RR. There's still too much focus on the conduct of others here for me to feel comfortable doing so by myself. Sandstein 06:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed and still I agreed to your terms. I did not argue against it or reject it. I accept your conditions in offering to unblock Routerone (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Routerone. Just stopped by to tell you I am impressed with how you have handled yourself through the blockages. You got beaten up and mugged but you held your cool. Dare I say you acted in a Christian manner (oops, sorry, a manner which had its roots in 'folk magic'). I have to remember we can't use the term 'Christian' because we believe in the Trinity in an uncommon way. I just want to add my voice to the fact that John Foxe has been allowed to run rampant but is rarely called out for it. I finally gave up there because I just don't have the time to take him on. I wonder if the power of Wikipedia has changed from evidence, consensus and neutrality, to simply a war of filibustering. I love to think that if this were a topic related to any other religion that there would be outrage and huge interventions. Instead you end up targeted for reverting in good faith. So if John Foxe has eliminated you through a permanent revert block, and filibustered me out, who is left to direct the article? COgden and John Foxe?, gee haven't they been controlling the article for years now? Take courage, at least at some future day you and I will be able to look Brother Joseph in the eye and say we acted both ethically and diligently to bring his name out of the mud that a great many bitter and angry people wished to hurl in his direction.--Canadiandy talk 07:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really do feel any attempt to bother with him now is a complete waste of my own time. I am upset of how I will be indefinitely blocked should I revert on the page yet he can do pretty much what he wants; he even insults me calling me "illiterate" to other editors. It's a shocking idea of justice, but looking at the talkpage for the joseph smith article tensions are running high right now and I hope eventually someone takes no more of it and blocks him. The only thing that I can do is pray latter day saints won't read his manipulated and dishonest interpretation of events and because of his antics, will simply ignore the page. I don't see any point in reading it or using it as a resource anymore Routerone (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used to get pretty frustrated by the thought that people would be influenced in their beliefs by the article. But the more I think on it the more it seems the cynics and critics are actually helping the Church grow. See, anyone who is still in some immature stage of choosing their beliefs based on an unstable encyclopedia article, is not the kind of individual who will play much of a role in helping the work to progress. No, I do not figure we give up on them. I just think there is a kind of natural selection going on here. Also, the more mud people sling at us, the more notice people take in us. It's kind of like we're the elephant in the room, we would like to be noticed, and they are yelling, Don't look at the elephant!" As far as whether others will see the negative inaccuracies in the article, I say don't worry. There's no rush here. And as I've said before, the real decent folk who read the article are left thinking, "Well that was mighty unfair." And this kind of thought often leads to a huge interest in the other side of the equation. It reminds me of a time on my mission when some polemic anti-Mormon passed out a book to all the houses in our area called, "God's Word, Final, Infallible, and Forever". It was basically just a book that had 7 chapters. The first 2 that talked about Jesus and the Bible. And then the final 5 that merely bashed the Church. And the next month we were the highest baptizing area in the mission. The reality is that lots of people read the book, and then they figured that the Church couldn't be as evil as the book made it out to be and so they started looking into it themselves. End result, Mormon bashing results in Church growth. So in essence, while these individuals are sadly hurting themselves and their character, the Church grows even faster when they start pointing fingers.--Canadiandy talk 01:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concern[edit]

I'm uneasy about your edits here and here. The first looks rather spiteful given your history of interaction with John Foxe. You don't need to be the one to tag Hi540's user page as a sockpuppet; leave that to others. The second looks like you're taking advantage of John Foxe's block to reverse the wording he influenced earlier. That makes it look like WP:BATTLE behavior—that the only thing preventing you from imposing your own POV is the active opposition of John Foxe. A better approach would be to wait until Foxe's block is lifted or expires, and then renew discussion about the wording at the talk page. I have many concerns about Foxe's behavior but I do not think his perspective should be eliminated, and that's what your edit seems to be aiming at. Will you please revert these edits? alanyst 04:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why would I revert the Hi540 tagging as a sockpuppet? Somebody needs to do it, after all the account is blocked indefinitely so I thought I might as well. Routerone (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the person(s) who conducted the sockpuppet investigation and blocked the accounts did not see fit to place the tag, why should you? If you thought it was an oversight, a polite note to the blocking administrator would have sufficed. Taking matters into your own hands would probably be fine if you were some random editor who happened upon the situation, but given the history of conflict it looks like spite. I have admonished you before on similar actions regarding Duke53 ([4]) but I've also implored Baseball Bugs not to do it to you ([5]). My goal is to discourage baiting, settling of scores, gloating, and other behaviors that degrade the editing environment and make long-term dispute resolution more complicated. Please reconsider and reverse those edits. alanyst 13:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag. The second edit may be in violation of the zero revert agreement. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I certainly did not violate anything. All I done was edit a page, I did not revert anyone's edits. The grounds of this indefinite block is not justified at all. WP:BOLD allows me to make an edit when I want, I made a simple edit to a page out of my own free will and I've been given an indefinite block. [6] Routerone (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you are unable to see how your editing violated the previous agreement then there is no point in even discussing a different set of conditions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2011 (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.

You removed material that another editor had added. Not only that, it was material that you had objected to in the past, and had already removed in the past. When you agreed to 0RR, this block was what you were risking, and you knew that before making the edit.—Kww(talk) 20:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From your unblock, BTW: "If you ever return a piece of any article related to Mormonism to an earlier state for any reason, you will be blocked, no matter the provocation."—Kww(talk) 20:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not remember ever agreeing to that- if correct the only thing I ever agreed to was not to revert, I have never been assigned a "topic ban" or anything of the sort. I haven't reverted and actually I've been free to edit LDS pages even after this so called "agreement" its only this so called "revert" (which clearly isn't) where you have abused your power and thrown an over the top, unjustified, indefinite block at me. I do not believe that it is justified at all, especially since it was not edit warring or any kind of conflict here on wikipedia. If you ask me, it was a legitimate edit and I should be allowed to make legitimate edits. Had someone else disagreed and reverted it, would I have reverted back? Not at all, because I was keeping my agreement not to revert. For the very agreement was for me "not to revert", not "not to edit". So I really think you should reconsider the grounds of this block. Routerone (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I considered it carefully before I blocked. If you didn't understand the terms of your unblocking earlier, this is solely due to a lack of comprehension on your part. It's all up there in earlier text on this very page.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if I didn't fully understand the terms why should I be accountable for it? if I have so made a mistake I did not realise I was doing? It was always my impression that I was simply allowed not to revert or edit war, not "not edit" the pages completely. I did believe I had that particular liberty and may I say I was not interested in edit warring or reverting. So in which case, what harm could I actually have done? This is not worthy of an indefinite block, maybe a shortened one, but an indefinite? No chance. Would you give the death penalty to a common thief? Perhaps you should reconsider on the basis of a simple misunderstanding. If you really do insist I should not edit the pages, then fine I will agree to the full terms which you set out and not edit any mormonism related pages if that's what you are after. As I did feel it was less than that in all fairness. Routerone (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The system has checks and balances. I could grant your unblock request, but I'm not permitted to deny your unblock request, which means another administrator will have to review the case. Personally, I regret having granted your last unblock request. You persist on editing areas of Wikipedia that are emotionally important to you, which prevents you from editing impartially.

And yes, "I didn't understand what I agreed to" isn't a defense at all. You are held to your agreements regardless.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Routerone, your own words were "any form of reverting activity". That was clearly a form of reverting activity. You've appealed, we'll see what some other Adminstrator has to say. But the terms of your unblocking were very clear about what would be considered a revert, and the warning that you were probably being given enough rope to hang yourself seems to have been just ignored when in fact it should have been a pretty big clue. -- And now that I've seen what you were posting while I was writing my post, my position is no different - it's your responsibility to recall what you said and read what the unblocking Administrator said. I find it hard to accept that you didn't think you were undoing something you didn't agree with, and that's a revert. You had an indefinite block, you got a conditional reprieve, you broke those conditions and now you don't want to accept the consequences because you say it was a simple misunderstanding. You've had enough chances this is your 7th block - you were indefinitely blocked for edit-warring last year, unblocked because you agreed not to, then you carried on and were blocked again for edit-warring. You've shown no sign of changing the behaviors that have caused you to be blocked so many times. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well what else would you be able say if you grant me an solid actual topic ban from all mormonism related articles and then unblock me? Then surely your point above there would be pointless? Routerone (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that you've already wasted enough of everyone's time, and that giving you another chance under any agreement is unnecessary.—Kww(talk) 20:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Routerone managed to not "hang himself" for 2.5 months under extremely restrictive conditions. Was he really expected to never revert ever again, or were we ever going to begin treating him like a normal editor? Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punative, and Routerone's recent actions were hardly out of control. Something like a 6-month topic ban seems much more appropriate than an indefinite block for this case, imho. ...comments? ~BF izz 05:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, it looks like he'll be taking a 2-year wikibreak rather soon. Best wishes. ...comments? ~BF izz 03:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]