User talk:0oToddo0

Please stop

Please cease replacing the unbalanced tag at the article "Two by Twos". Two editors have reverted you more than once, and I don't think either of us want to go to firmer measures. Edit warring isn't a good idea. Please discuss on the talk page further. Thank you. Winkelvi (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting renewed edit warring on Two by Twos

You have decided to engage again in behavior for which you have previously been reprimanded. This backdoor effort to insert your personal synthesis and deface the article using tags is being reported to WP:AN/EW. 5 instances again in less than 24 hours. • Astynax ^talk 23:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The report is now reported here. • Astynax ^talk 00:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is 8 hours without reverts, I am not going to block you. But if you re-add that tag again, in opposition to the apparent consensus, I will block you for edit warring immediately. Viridae ^{DON'T PANIC} 08:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of tags if they are not allowed to be used? Have a read of the wording on the tag and you will see that it is quite appropriate that the tag is placed there, based on the neglected viewpoints that I mentioned. By the way, I am not the only one edit warring,because as much as I have added the tag, others have removed it. How about we spend more of our correspondence on how to fix the article so that we can legitimately remove the tag. Yes, I know this article raises some passionate debate by those who want to support a particular point of view, of which some the points I raise tends to contradict, but if we have to suppress some of these facts because of a particular point of view, that makes this article unbalanced. If an article is unbalanced, it needs an unbalanced tag to alert readers to the fact that they may be only get part of the story. 0oToddo0 (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest reversions have been reported again

Here. • Astynax ^talk 15:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Two by Twos

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Two by Twos. 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.

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:0oToddo0 reported by User:Astynax (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2013 (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).

0oToddo0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Regarding the edit war, obviously it takes two people to war, and it is my opinion that you have blocked the wrong person. I only made some very minor changes to add a small amount of extra detail to one section that was entirely uncited. This was reverted many times by Astynax, despite that he would know very well that it was accurate information that I added. The reason he gave for the revert is that I hadn't cited a reliable source, but he was reverting it to a state that also had no citations. Astynax has a strong point of view regarding this group of people, and this is why he plays political games like this, such as warring with any editors that want to fix this article, and make it more accurate and balanced. Although Astynax seems to expect that every single word I write on the article must come with a citation, which may be fair enough if that is Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia policy also states that an article doesn't have to be perfect first time. This becomes especially frustrating when Astynax and Winkelvi are making unreasonable demands that they aren't even complying with themselves. When I try to discuss the information with Astynax, I get no discussion with him on the talk page, unless I actually edit the article. Even then, the discussion becomes not about the edit, but threats about edit wars (which he is also participating in), and accusations of not following a Wikipedia Policy, the very same Wikipedia Policy he is also breaking by changing it to the way he wants it, without citations. The other way that I have tried to get him to enter into the dispute on the talk page, and alert other editors to contribute to the dispute, is by putting a disputed section tag on the appropriate section, but then all he does is war over the dispute tag, and make threats that the dispute tag shouldn't be there. This disappointing behaviour is not very conducive to creating a good article, and getting a balanced input from multiple editors. I have noticed other editors have tried as I have, but he very early reports them for making changes, long before he has entered any reasonable discussion about proposed changes to the article. I would certainly invite any other ideas on how to encourage him into meaningful and productive discussion on minor edits to this article, because at this point I have not found a way to engage him in anything other than edit warring. While the article is how he wants it, he won’t discuss on the talk page, and when someone edits the article he gets into an edit war with them, reports them, and gets them blocked. At this point I am by no means asking you to block him, because I am happy to try to continue reasoning with him, but I am unable to while I am blocked. Kind regards 0oToddo0 (talk) 6:28 pm, Today (UTC+4)

Decline reason:

This says it all If you want to be unblocked early you will need a littklemore awareness of your own actions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:51, 19 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.

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).

0oToddo0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My actions constituted of multiple attempts to make some minor changes to this article, and many attempts to discuss the changes with Astynax. Yes, I acknowledge that we were edit warring, but the only way I could entice him to participate at all is when I edited the article. Only then, he would undo my edits (edit war), and would still not discuss the content of the proposed changes. While the article is in the form that he prefers it, he will not participate in any discussions about changes. I also tried adding a dispute tag (which I assume is the right thing to use for disputes) instead of editing the article, but then it just becomes an edit war over the dispute tag. Please advise how it is possible for me to participate on Wikipedia while Astynax is protecting his point of view. I honestly do not know how I can behave differently to be able to encourage Astynax to engage in some positive and productive discussion and editing. It seems a bit extreme to ask for him to be blocked for edit warring while I make what are only small changes anyway, and I do prefer to have involvement from other editors rather than have them blocked, but if that is how the Wikipedia Administrators prefer it to be handled, please let me know. Please recommend any alternative methods I can try so we don't go back into this same cycle of him refusing to discuss, then me going ahead and making edits, then him reverting my edits, until he thinks he has enough cycles of this to call it a edit war and report me and get me blocked. Yes, it is an edit war, and that is not good for Wikipedia, but neither is having this article with such misleading information, and Astynax is refusing to cooperate with other editors to make it right. Again, please advise how I can avoid going through this same cycle with Astynax. With respect 0oToddo0 (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Focus on YOUR edits, not others, and recognize that YOU are the once responsible for following dispute resolution processes in lieu of edit warring (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 20 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.