User talk:YesOn8

February 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Violence against women, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tcncv (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Violence against women. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Irn (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to notify the other party(s) to what you term a 'war'. Why would that be? Aversion to fairness is the obvious answer. And there's no "war". I've enjoined talk and explained rational at every step. Next time attempt to impress me with the same. See particularly WP:GA about encouragement for the placement of images]].YesOn8 (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also bear in mind WP:Original research and WP:Undue weight. —C.Fred (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A notice has been placed on the edit warring notice board concerning your behavior. -- Irn (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of the three-revert rule on the article Violence against women. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

—C.Fred (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2009 (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).

YesOn8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Abusive admin action from other party to content dispute to WP:GAME. This is never permitted, see also WP:COI. Unblock. No opportunity was allowed to respond to the report. And in any case there has been ample explanation on the article's talkpage which the other party obviously derogates seriously getting involved with in preference to its WP:GAME strategy, so far successful.

Decline reason:

Your edits today are clearly in breach of 3RR and a short block is appropriate. Also blaming someone else does not assist in such circumstances. Unblock request is declined.— --VS ^talk 05:47, 1 February 2009 (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.

Yes, the admin reverting you shouldn't have blocked you. But that's no excuse for reverting the article six times [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], against a consensus of four users (everyone else editing the article). Suggest reblocking in the name of an uninvolved administrator. Erik9 (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. --Irn (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2009 (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).

YesOn8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No, I have not just been reverting and ignoring or bypassing considered discussion. That was other parties who most suspiciously did not receive any warnings or sanction for that behaviour. At each stage i have been supplying additional material, whether text content or image, to satisfactorily deal with each successive concern raised. Can you not see how I have supplied those changes in good faith and been responded to with cavalier and bad-faith actions? Examine histories. More importantly, now you acknowledge the blocking was done absolutely wrongly - which is to say, corruptly on the part of User:Erik9 - will you now have a sack and do the right thing ie. unblock as disfacilitation of its exposed effort to WP:GAME so. You ought to know you need to.YesOn8 (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read WP:GAB. Blaming others in your own request for unblock is hardly ever successful. It is easy to see that you were edit warring. If other people were warring, as you think, that does not explain why you should be unblocked. Discuss your own actions. EdJohnston (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2009 (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).

YesOn8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes. Everything's been justified and responded to by me at Talk:Violence against women with weak justifications, weak reasoning, and unsubtle troglodyte reactionary actions in reply. Unblock.

Decline reason:

I have extended your block to 48 hours because of your disruptive unblock requests. — Sandstein 17:37, 1 February 2009 (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).

YesOn8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Do your job or quit your job. It's not disruption for you to be put to the trouble of dealing with unblock requests against a corrupt blocking action by a WP:GAMEing administrator that's been caught out for it. It's your job. The remedy is a maximum of 24 hours, see WP:BLOCK, which has gone. Yet you victimise me for repeating to point out, rightly the injustice of the original action being a cynical corrupt activity of the administrator User:C.Fred when they get involved in editing disagreement. Unblock.

Decline reason:

Not a valid unblock request. Have you read the guide to appealing blocks? Do you understand your block? Have you given a good reason for unblock? Have you talked about yourself, not others? Have you agreed to behave? The answer to all of that is a big NO. — Andrew c ^[talk] 19:26, 2 February 2009 (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.

Let me make my response as another reviewer. YesOn8: What you did was you added barely relevant bondage pics to an article about a mainstream subject. When others objected to your edits, reverted you, and explained themselves, you basically just persisted in trying to force the change you wanted. I hesitate to call your action vandalism because I prefer to assume the best of your motivations but frankly I can imagine a vandal taking this approach. You were fairly warned about your repeated reverts, and when you were reported for them and then blocked your response was to accuse everyone else of incompetence/maliciousness/whatever, when in fact you were the one causing the problem. You are the one trying to game the system here, not C.Fred, and calling this an "editing disagreement" is pushing the bounds of credulity.. but even if I concede that he shouldn't have blocked you himself the fact remains that you should be blocked, so you should not be unblocked. Mango juice^talk 19:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as for your block being extended, it was extended due to incivility, per your "unsubtle troglodyte reactionary actions" comment. Mango juice^talk 19:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username block[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked this username for violation of WP:USERNAME. Whether or not the intention, this name could be interpreted as a reference to the highly contentious California Proposition 8. Therefore, it seems to be a promotional name related to a political stance (not a group or company, per se). Because of how this proposition, and politics in general, are polarizing, it seems like, while maybe not strictly "offensive", it would fall under "making harmonious editing difficult" or disruptive. (therefore there are 2 independent lines of reasoning related to the spirit of WP:IU). I will try my best to remove the account creation block once the last 48h block expires (17:38, 3 February 2009). Because of software limitations, this will not be automatic. Below is the username block default message:

This account, YesOn8, has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because your username does not meet our username policy.

This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it—see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, or misleading. Also, usernames may not end with the string "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username. To do so, please follow these directions:

Add {{unblock-un|Your reason here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far more easily allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username.
In the alternative, you can "abandon" the contributions under this username and create a new account, which is much faster and easier.

Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'YesOn8' = TV channel 8 viewers slogan, or otherwise a statement of fact informing a popularly confirmed and finally settled legality outcome in California[edit]

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).

YesOn8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yet more victimisation, and again with cynical corruption because the required policy step OF GETTING MY RESPONSE/EXPLANATION BEFORE PUTTING ON BLOCKS was found inexpedient for the WP:GAMEing scenario being played out the bullying admins. Oh, btw, has there been any sanction upon User:C.Fred the admin who was exposed for corruptly having imposed the blocking in the first place. No? Gee. Wow. So surprised. I digress. Channel 8 is a TV channel so by every test I am allowed to have this name and your politicking and effort to political correctness is apt to be held in contempt. And even if to some people 8 only ever means a political contest of the past, that contest is decided and over and no longer a live controversy. 'YesOn8' could no longer be the advocating of an idea, it's the statement of an outcome. So if you have a problem with 'MarijuanaIsIllegal' or 'SlaveryIsDead' or 'WomenCanVote' as names then you a most sad and risible busybody indeed. And even even if being thankful for the successfully defended and fully legal traditional character of marriage is just unacceptable for Wikipedia, then what next to you want to stamp out of existence from expressions of conscience by Wikipedians .. being glad for motherhood or Father's Day or Mother's Day. Have a life, puhleez now. On said basis, un-nameblock without delay.

Decline reason:

Per Luna Santin's excellent work in discovering you are a part of sock or meat puppet racket. Thanks for stopping by. — --VS ^talk 10:26, 3 February 2009 (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 adjusted[edit]

I have adjusted your block to prevent you from abusing the unblock process and I have put a protection style notice on your page to let other know of that situation. Quite frankly the community has had enough now because your unblock requests are becoming far too disruptive and continue to be extremely unhelpful as well as uncivil. For administrators reviewing this please note that I have left the last unblock request related to the username up for consideration, but YesOn8 will not be able to make edits until that review has been completed.--VS ^talk 09:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser has Confirmed the following users match each other:

YesOn8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
MethaneSymphony (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Blagojevich (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Truncatr (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
1race2rule (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
SirCliffReal68EurovisionChamp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Have blocked all of the above, and the underlying IP address. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]