User talk:Lysergic Casserole

“

Anti-vandalism tools such as Twinkle, Huggle and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes without an appropriate edit summary.

”

— W:EW, the relevant policy for Flyer22's edit

August 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Eric Clapton. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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. Zad68 18:34, 19 August 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Vandalfighters and cluebot failed to recognize a false positive. I am improving the article. People who use antivandalism tools are not allowed to use them in content disputes. I was threatened that I would be blocked if I reverted again, so I did not and instead I asked Flyer22 to revert Flyer22's edit.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. You were blocked for edit warring and need to address that issue, not complain about other editors. Favonian (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

We both know that that is not true. I said I stopped reverting BEFORE I got blocked. I have been making useful contributions. I have not caused any damage or disruption. I understand I have been blocked because TW and HG users have a kneejerk reaction to all swearwords, even if they are quoted from a reliable source. Both Flyer22 and IronGargoyle have edited the article to include: '...announced on stage that Britain was in danger of becoming a "black colony".' This is a BLP violation and a misquote, in reality he said: "Stop Britain from becoming a black colony.".

Decline reason:

At 17:58 you were warned about edit warring: [1]. That warning included the sentence "If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing." (Bolding in the original.) At 18:00 you removed the edit-warring warning, showing that you had seen it: [2]. At 18:20 you continued with your edit war: [3]. At 18:23 you were still continuing with your edit war: [4]. Your claim that you stopped reverting when you were warned (or, as you prefer to call it, "threatened") that you might be blocked is therefore mistaken. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2014 (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 request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please ask an experienced admin to take a look so I get unblocked. Lysergic Casserole (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other usernames - LC, what are the names of the other usernames you have used to edit Wikipedia? Zad68 19:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I am not at home and unable to use my VPN I create a new one, and I have been doing that for many years. How is that relevant? Oh, I know, you are trying to attack me so that it becomes less obvious that you made a mistake. Did I vandalise anything? Nope. Did my edits improve Wikipedia? Yes. Are those kneejerk reactions helping Wiki? Nope. Lysergic Casserole (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68 I answered your question, now please answer mine: Why did you block me after I stopped reverting? How is that protecting Wikipedia? Why are my edits bad? Why didn't you read my contribs and the sources I am quoting from? Why are you overruling Flyer22? Why am I still blocked (by now you must be aware that my edits are not vandalism, and that I stopped reverting before you blocked me)? Lysergic Casserole (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get your ping via W:Echo; I simply happened to look at your user talk page again. How is "Stop Britain from becoming a black colony" different, context-wise, from "announced on stage that Britain was in danger of becoming a 'black colony.'"? Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you care? You ignore policy (see top of page) and you haven't even bothered to check if I was vandalising or quoting a racist text. And you haven't unblocked me. I'll use myself as an example: "Lysergic Casserole is in danger of becoming a religious extremist" is different from "Stop Lysergic Casserole becoming a religious extremist". Theoretically every living person is in danger of becoming a religious extremist, the second example claims that this process is already happening and that we should stop it. I don't know how I can explain it better than that. Please send an experienced admin this way cause ping is not working and this is very insulting and annoying. Lysergic Casserole (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may perhaps be worth pointing out that covering your talk page with numerous "request for help" templates is unlikely to help your unblock request. Any administrator who chooses to assess unblock requests will do so, without having the page listed among the requests for help too. Posting multiple copies of help request templates seems rather like shouting, and if anything may make people less inclined to be favourably disposed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, and good advice, but I am pissed off because certain idiots seem to think that the racist text I quoted from reliable sources is my own opinion. I am not a racist. I am also annoyed that vandalfighters and admins refuse to read and think before they act. Lysergic Casserole (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALysergic_Casserole&diff=621948157&oldid=621945101

Decline reason:

A diff of a warning on your talk page from an experienced editor does not make for a valid unblock request. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:54, 19 August 2014 (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.

Having declined one of your unblock requests, I will leave this one to another administrator. However, since the request does not contain any reason for unblocking at all, I cannot conceive of any administrator accepting it. In the meanwhile, since you are abusing your talk page access to attack other editors (e.g. calling them "idiots") and to post phony unblock requests, I have removed your talk page access. If and when an administrator declines your unblock request, he or she may also consider whether to restore your talk page access: otherwise it will be restored automatically when your block ends. One piece of advice: if you continue to be contemptuous towards every Wikipedia editor with whom you disagree, rather than civilly explaining your reason for disagreeing, it will probably not be long before you are blocked indefinitely. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Zad68 20:07, 20 August 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

wtf? srsly wtf? i get blocked for reverting a BLP violation? Why does no one say what they think is wrong? WTF? Binksternet has reverted back to the version with the "lingering" and the misquote? Zad still has not answered my questions but he is abusing admin button..

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason for your block. You may draft and submit an appeal in accordance with the guide, which you need to read first. However if you continue to abuse your talk page access, it will be revoked. —SMALL JIM 21:13, 20 August 2014 (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 were blocked two days ago for edit-warring; that has been made abundantly clear to you. You apparently have developed an acute case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and immediately resumed the same behavior when your block expired. It doesn't get much simpler than that, FWIW, OMGBBQ. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, Jamie, do me a favor please before I get really depressed. Please explain me wtf is wrong with my edits. I was reverted and blocked with no explanation what was wrong. Lysergic Casserole (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked the first time for edit-warring. That block was for 24 hours because initially I gave you the benefit of the doubt, as you looked like a new editor first time edit-warring. You then mentioned that you are a more experienced editor and you create throw-away accounts regularly. So now I have no idea what kinds of sanctions you're carrying on your previous accounts--you might be indef'd on one of them, or even banned. Still giving you the benefit of the doubt I kept the block at 24 hours. You were blocked this time for immediate resumption of the same kind of edit at the same article that you were edit-warring on originally. After your first block you showed no sign of understanding why you were blocked, and resumed the same behavior after the block expired. Because the passage of time did not result in an improvement in your editing behavior, this block is indef to remove the time dependency. Zad68 20:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BUT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. EXPLAIN THE PROBLEM WITH MY EDIT PLEASE. You wrote indef until demonstrates comprehension but I honestly do not understand. If you gimme an explanation then I can understand (or not) and agree (or not) but no one has even bothered to explain what the problem is. I think that I got reverted because the vandalfighters saw all the swearwords, not because my edit was incorrect, but the swear words are quoted from a reliable source... they are NOT MY OPINION. Is the Rolling Stone not a reliable source? The other thing I did is to give the correct full quote from the book instead of the original incorrect quote. The word lingering was not added by me. I changed the header (see discussion on the talkpage that no one bothers to use) because the main problem was racism, immigrations wasn't the issue, and Bob Caldwell CSL agreed with that. I think the reason people refuse to explain what I did wrong is because I did not do anything wrong... I made a goodfaithed edit that improves Wiki, and now you are treating me as if I am trying to destroy wiki. [User:Lysergic Casserole|Lysergic Casserole]] (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's try and explain the situation. Eric Clapton has something of a history of making controversial remarks about race and immigration (essentially one issue in the UK) but the remarks need to be in context, of his later remarks, of the time it was made and it needs to be presented in a relevant fashion, just dropping a big lump of copyright text without a source isn't particularly encyclopedic, it looks very much like a character assassination, if I'm being honest. This is something you're never going to be able to add unilaterally, it will need consensus and almost certainly heavy editing by all parties to reach a compromise solution.

I trust this will give you some ideas and an ability to move forward. There are other editors to the article who can be pinged and a way forward, both for you and for the article discussed here. I would expect reaching a mature and sensible compromise with the other editors on the Eric Clapton article would be very likely to result in an unblock, as it would ably demonstrate the issues for which you have been blocked for being satisfactorily overcome. Nick (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very much support Nick's suggestion here, if LC can Echo-ping the Eric Clapton editors here and demonstrate the ability to work with them to resolve the content issue (one way or another), that would overcome the concerns I had that led to this block and I would support an unblock. Zad68 12:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

echo

User_Talk:Zad68 echo Lysergic Casserole (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge the ping. I already provided the answers to your questions in my block messages and in what I supplied above. I am sorry I am unable to make myself understood. Because I have provided all the information asked of me, at this point I am going to stop responding to your requests here and let another admin or other passing editor try to work with you. Zad68 21:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I must've missed that! I am going to check all your contribs. Lysergic Casserole (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

echo2

User_Talk:JamesBWatson User_Talk:Ohnoitsjamie User_Talk:Flyer22 echo Lysergic Casserole (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother pinging me again, because I'm not wasting any more time with this. Anyone looking at this talk page history can see that you were warned multiple times for edit warring; you deleted each warning, then acted surprised when you were blocked. The issues with your edits per se don't matter here; what matters is you were warned to stop edit warring, got blocked for it, then resumed the same behavior as soon as your block expired. Nothing to see here, folks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are proving my point. I was not blocked because my edit was wrong, I was blocked because I "edit warred". Lysergic Casserole (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm simply not commenting on the edit, because I'm not interested. A consensus of other editors objected to it, and you edit-warred against them. As you've already demonstrated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I have a feeling the issues with your edit have already been explained on the Eric Clapton talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time

Take your time to draft an appeal - using the preview function or preferably offline. When you are satisfied with it, post it here. Another admin will then consider it. It is impossible to deal with appeals when you keep editing the page, changing what you say, etc. Consider this as your last chance. —SMALL JIM 21:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. I am pissed of and I feel insulted at the moment. Lysergic Casserole (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]