User talk:Redmen44

March 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. 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. D P 17:11, 31 March 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).

Redmen44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked? Once I was warned I stopped and then discussed the issue on the talk pages. I thought the issue was resolved and I apologized for my actions and did not repeat them. I have made very valuable contributions to this site and have learned my lesson. This comes as a shock because I was warned about 3 days ago and I did not edit war again. Please understand that I am not trying to cause problems and when I was warned I stopped warring and discussed. I would like to continue to contribute to this great site so please let me continue to do that. Thank you Redmen44 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The last time you were blocked for edit warring, you requested an unblock and said "I have not reverted any of the updates since I was warned". Following that, you avoided another block for edit warring by saying at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring that you did not intend to edit war, and would instead discuss edits. After that, you edit warred again, were blocked, and requested an unblock, saying "Once I was warned I stopped and then discussed the issue on the talk pages". You don't get to keep on edit warring as often as you like provided that each time you are blocked or told that a block is likely you say you won't do it any more. Since neither warnings nor a short block has stopped you continually edit warring on several pages, a longer block is the one thing that may stand a chance of conveying the message "edit warring is unacceptable". Also, the statement "Once I was warned I stopped and then discussed the issue on the talk pages" misses the point. You have been told before that edit warring is unacceptable, have been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and have responded there, and you have even been blocked for edit warring, and appealed against the block, so you are clearly fully aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. You don't have to be told again that edit warring is unacceptable each time you start another edit war. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:35, 2 April 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 is asking that his block be reviewed:

Redmen44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel that this block should not have been placed on my account. I was warned reference an article Josh Gasser that I had just created. I was warned Result:Not Blocked about edit warring because I was removing a BLP tag that I was confused on what that was. I stopped the warring and left the tag up while I looked for more reliable sources and discussed the topic on the talk pages. That issue seemed to be over but I was then blocked two days later for completely different situation on the Bo Ryan page. I was not edit warring as I was reverting edits by unconfirmed users as they were editing a part of the postseason record on the Bo Ryan page reference his current basketball season that has not ended yet. I have explained this below and you will see below there does seem to be some discrepancy about did I really do any wrong IN THIS CASE? There is now a discussion on the Bo Ryan talk page about edits that I was reverting and stating that I was not totally incorrect in making those edits. Please understand that I am not perfect and I have done things in the past that I am not proud of but this current block was NOT a case of edit warring in my opinion. Thank you for your time. Redmen44 (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I feel that this block should not have been placed on my account. I was warned reference an article [[Josh Gasser]] that I had just created. I was warned [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive240#User:Redmen44_reported_by_User:Flat_Out_.28Result:Not_blocked_.29 Result:Not Blocked] about edit warring because I was removing a BLP tag that I was confused on what that was. I stopped the warring and left the tag up while I looked for more reliable sources and discussed the topic on the talk pages. That issue seemed to be over but I was then blocked two days later for completely different situation on the [[Bo Ryan]] page. I was not edit warring as I was reverting edits by unconfirmed users as they were editing a part of the postseason record on the Bo Ryan page reference his current basketball season that has not ended yet. I have explained this below and you will see below there does seem to be some discrepancy about did I really do any wrong IN THIS CASE? There is now a discussion on the [[Bo Ryan]] talk page about edits that I was reverting and stating that I was not totally incorrect in making those edits. Please understand that I am not perfect and I have done things in the past that I am not proud of but this current block was NOT a case of edit warring in my opinion. Thank you for your time. [[User:Redmen44|Redmen44]] ([[User talk:Redmen44#top|talk]]) 17:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I feel that this block should not have been placed on my account. I was warned reference an article [[Josh Gasser]] that I had just created. I was warned [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive240#User:Redmen44_reported_by_User:Flat_Out_.28Result:Not_blocked_.29 Result:Not Blocked] about edit warring because I was removing a BLP tag that I was confused on what that was. I stopped the warring and left the tag up while I looked for more reliable sources and discussed the topic on the talk pages. That issue seemed to be over but I was then blocked two days later for completely different situation on the [[Bo Ryan]] page. I was not edit warring as I was reverting edits by unconfirmed users as they were editing a part of the postseason record on the Bo Ryan page reference his current basketball season that has not ended yet. I have explained this below and you will see below there does seem to be some discrepancy about did I really do any wrong IN THIS CASE? There is now a discussion on the [[Bo Ryan]] talk page about edits that I was reverting and stating that I was not totally incorrect in making those edits. Please understand that I am not perfect and I have done things in the past that I am not proud of but this current block was NOT a case of edit warring in my opinion. Thank you for your time. [[User:Redmen44|Redmen44]] ([[User talk:Redmen44#top|talk]]) 17:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I feel that this block should not have been placed on my account. I was warned reference an article [[Josh Gasser]] that I had just created. I was warned [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive240#User:Redmen44_reported_by_User:Flat_Out_.28Result:Not_blocked_.29 Result:Not Blocked] about edit warring because I was removing a BLP tag that I was confused on what that was. I stopped the warring and left the tag up while I looked for more reliable sources and discussed the topic on the talk pages. That issue seemed to be over but I was then blocked two days later for completely different situation on the [[Bo Ryan]] page. I was not edit warring as I was reverting edits by unconfirmed users as they were editing a part of the postseason record on the Bo Ryan page reference his current basketball season that has not ended yet. I have explained this below and you will see below there does seem to be some discrepancy about did I really do any wrong IN THIS CASE? There is now a discussion on the [[Bo Ryan]] talk page about edits that I was reverting and stating that I was not totally incorrect in making those edits. Please understand that I am not perfect and I have done things in the past that I am not proud of but this current block was NOT a case of edit warring in my opinion. Thank you for your time. [[User:Redmen44|Redmen44]] ([[User talk:Redmen44#top|talk]]) 17:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

If this was caused because of my edits to Bo Ryan's page that is totally unfair. People have edited Bo Ryan's page stating that his current season has ended at the Final Four when in fact the Wisconsin Badgers basketball season is not over yet so until then it should remain TBD like I have edited his page to be. There was no discussion that I was incorrect in doing that. It seems that Bagumba (talk) has some sort of "beef" with me and I do not know why? I respect Bagumba as a very valuable member to this community and only wish some day I can reach his status level. I explain why I reverted the edits on Bo Ryan's page and was never told that I was incorrect. The edits were from different IP address/non-confirmed users and I changed them with an explanation to explain why I did so. If I am warned like I was last week I stopped warring but in this case I reverted edits because I feel that they are correct because the season has not concluded yet and was never advised from Bagumba or anyone else that this was not acceptable. Instead Bagumba reports me to an admin and I get blocked with out warning? Can someone please help? I just want to contribute positively to this site without feeling bullied for making edits and then without warning get blocked. Thanks Redmen44 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba and DangerousPanda: I would like to write both of you to tell you tell you how sorry I am. As I stated above, I was not trying to cause problems on the Bo Ryan page. I was reverting because I thought that was the right thing to do and I was not told otherwise. Wikipedia is a big part of my life and with my condition I don't know how much longer I will have to contribute on this site. I have learned my lesson from my previous block and would like to contribute in more positive way to this site during the short amount of time that I have left. I really hope you both can see how sincere I truly am and therefore reinstate me please. With the time I have left, Bagumba, I really hope we can become Wikipedia friends and as I stated above I truly respect what you do for this site. I have nothing but true remorse here and I hope and pray you both (all) can see that. Thank you for your time. Redmen44 (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you are a sockpuppet of Carthage44, so be thankful that you've had ample opportunity to use this account as a WP:CLEANSTART, but have frankly failed. Considering the alternative of another indefinite block, 2 weeks here is fairly lenient. If nobody spends the time to reopen that sock case and this 2 weeks expires, I'd advise you count your blessings and make sure your behavior has absolutely nothing in common with your past. Aside from the edit warring, you are a dick in responding to others on your talk page, usually just deleting the request unexplained or leaving the occasional colorful comment like "Leave me alone and let me work" or "Removed nonsense from a confused user".—Bagumba (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how Bagumba can get away with trying to slander me as a person and a user. I put myself out to him and apologized for any wrong doing and hoped that someday we could become friends, yet he has the audacity to call me a dick? Really, this is accepted? Never once did I call him a name or try and belittle him. I asked for his forgiveness and he responds like that? I have opened my personal life up to him and this community and as a token of my inter anguish, I get demoralized for it by him. I can only hope there is some common decency still out there. And by the way, why does he keep referring to me as carthage44? Just because we have the number 44 is our user name? I have no idea where this is coming from. Redmen44 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're fully aware what edit warring is, and the sole situations where it's "acceptable". You've been blocked for it before, and the purpose of a block is to prevent it from happening again. You therefore didn't need to be told AGAIN that is was wrong. You were even pinged on my own talkpage to make you aware that this was an issue. Stop blaming others for your actions D P 19:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where in any of my statements of posts have I blamed someone else for my actions? I have ACCEPTED the blame and apologized for past edit wars. My current block that you have placed on me I feel is unwarranted as I have explained above. I was commenting on how Bagumba feels the need to slander me when all I did was apologize and complement him. All I want to do is get back to making useful contributions to Wikipedia that is why I have asked for an independent party to review my case. I just want a fair shake here and I have only been kind and heartfelt yet I still get called a dick by Bagumba yet his actions are justified? Thank you Redmen44 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slander is a legal term - you would need to be formally identifiable in order for slander to be valid. Beware that using such legal terms could cause for an indefinite block for WP:NLT. This block is 100% valid: you edit-warred, even though you know what edit-warring is, and have read the edit-warring policy that explains the sole exceptions. Stop talking about Bagumba, and focus on your own behaviour. You have yet to explain WHY you edit-warred even though you knew your edits were contrary to that policy, and, as per wP:GAB, you have failed to produce any "way forward" in the future that doesn't include edit-warring. Yes, it can be uncivil to call you a dick, but you're behaving a little bit like one in your interactions with others ... so you'll probably want to address that too D P 20:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read above as I have explained why I feel this block was unjust. I am waiting for an independent party to weight in because I am exhausted with all the name calling and bullying. Someone please help me here as I have explained myself in a apologetic and kind manner yet I continue to be disrespected. I have made mistakes in the past but have corrected them and I do not feel that anyone should be attacked like this. Thank you Redmen44 (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have NOT explained why you edit-warred, you simply described edit-warring to a T. By the way, I am independent ... although I won't review your block because I'm the blocking admin, I CAN remove the block if and when you actually make a wP:GAB-compliant request, which you have not done. Again, you KNOW what edit-warring is because you were blocked for it - you didn't need to be warned again. You also have a history of "playing nice for awhile" when this happens, then reverting back ... your contributions show it D P 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Redmen44: I'm not an admin here, but if you're waiting for an independent party to weigh in, I can tell you that by the way this is unfolding, you sound like you need a bit of a break from the wiki anyway. Sometimes when you get angry at other editors, or you get blocked for what you believe to be an unjust cause (although I can tell you the block was completely justified), the best thing to do is walk away for a while and regain your composure. That's essentially what edit warring blocks like these are for, along with protecting the article from further harm. So please, just take the rest of your two weeks and relax away from the wiki. T C N7JM 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and your opinions on this matter. I am not angry at any users I was just angry at the fact that I have been polite and remorseful yet I am the one being called a dick which I feel was unjust. If the case of my block for the Bo Ryan edits, yes I feel the unblock was unjust and I was not edit warring as unconfirmed users were editing his page incorrectly as they might not have known that the season is not over yet, that's all no harm. The Wisconsin Badgers basketball season is not over so therefore his current season is still ongoing and should not be edited until the season has completed. I do not claim to be an expert on all the rules of Wikipedia but I do try to obey at the best of my ability. I know what edit warring is and in the past I have been guilty of that, I admit that, but in this case I was reverting because the season has not ended and until then the page should reflect that. I do not wish to be a problem on this site and I only hope to contribute in a positive manner. This site helps me on a daily basis and I wish I could convey that to all of you. I am truly sorry to all and everyone if I have wasted your time. I never meant for that. My only plea is that maybe someone is willing to give me a chance to prove myself now and remove my block or at least shorten it, please. Taking me away from this site hurts me more than you know. Thank you for your time and stay well. Redmen44 (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to criticize the blocking admin, but I do feel that if the block is for the Bo Ryan reverts, two weeks is rather harsh, although I realize that prior history was probably taken into account. Northern Antarctica (₵) 15:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northern Antarctica: Thank you for your input and seeing my point of view as that is the reason I am currently blocked for the Bo Ryan edits that were in no way trying to invoke a edit war. What do you suggest I do? I see that a discussion has started about this topic on the Bo Ryan talk page and I would like to be a part of that. Instead, I have been blocked for something that was never discussed until now. Please, if there is anything you can do to help my situation it would be greatly appreciated. Redmen44 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Antarctica, Redmen's prior history was taken into account with this block. Just like all cases of blocking, if a block is made once, but the issue persists after the user continues editing, a second or third block for the same issue is always longer. Redmen, this block is not going to be lifted. I'd recommend following TCN7JM's advice and taking the two weeks away from Wiki and then come back and prove you've learned your lesson. Gloss • talk 16:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]