Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:49, 19 July 2012

Blind reverts

Why did you remove the context which clarified the comment by Bernard Lewis? Your use of nasty language and blind reverts is unacceptable. 85.81.20.149 (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

i don't trust you. you continued the edits of a banned racist editor.-- altetendekrabbe  18:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand what I am saying? I didnt want to hear about your odd feelings, I wanted to hear about why you remove the context that I added to the comment by Bernard Lewis. -- 85.81.20.149 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Also why did you claimj that I reverted the article? I assume that you don't even read the changes that you revert?

you're either a sock or a stalker. period. your attempt to make a wp:point by continuing the edit war of a banned racist user is unacceptable.-- altetendekrabbe  18:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Why dont you contribute beyond attacking me personally? Is that too hard for you? -- 85.81.20.149 (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, altetendekrabbe, you don't come out smelling like a rose from this. Sure it's easy to get all self-righteous and call other people "racists", and sure other editors, even pretty good ones, might share in that self-righteousness, but the fact is that WP should be a step above this kind of ad hominem vrovl. So, as the other comments on here suggest, you will be able to do good work here if you can just exert yourself to be as polite as possible. I hope you stay, but it's up to you mand! --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

3RR now, please stop, I'm reporting the editor who seems to be new. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, thanks.-- altetendekrabbe  11:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added another message or two. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeringly (talk • contribs) 12:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Another update on the talk page for you. Kind regards (Steeringly (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

Talkback

♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I was hoping you would pass comment on my suggested amendment to the article Ahmadiyya. Kind regards (Steeringly (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

Template:Z10

User:Frotz, who reported Altetendekrabbe, had also violated 3RR at the time, but was not blocked. The user has actually since made a 5th revert in a 24 hour period, and no one has blocked or even warned him.VR _talk 21:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, nobody at AN/3RR will block for 3RR unless they have been appropriately warned ... why didn't you do it? = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 21:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

bwilkins, administrator itszippy acknowledges that frotz should have been banned as he also violated the 3-rr. frotz has now violated this rule almost twice! on top of that he is forcing sources that *don't* comply with wikipedia guidelines into the articles. how many policies must he violate before you take action? vice regent has removed most of the non-reliable sources but the mark durie source remains. -- altetendekrabbe  04:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

vice regent, i have just received the perlmutter-source which is used in the article. i'll come back to you after my block expires. we have a case for the npov-notceboard-- altetendekrabbe  04:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, is it necessary to warn a user so familiar with 3RR that he files his own 3RR reports? Can't you see what's going on here? Frotz is using 3RR as a tool to get Altetendekrabbe blocked, while he has made 5 reverts in 24 hours.

If admins refuse to block a user who edit wars, violates 3RR, on the basis that he "wasn't warned", then that is setting a terrible precedent.VR _talk 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you nuts?

You just came off a block for this didn't you? Calm down man. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Do calm down. Misplaced Pages is built with patience and discussion, not edit-warring.VR _talk 23:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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.

Kuru (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

can you please try to explain in a sensible way why you didn't block ankhmorpork as well? by the way, this amounts to hounding . user frotz also got me blocked while he escaped with 5 reverts in less than 24 hours.-- altetendekrabbe  21:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If they were doing this, you could have reported them.

You are actually a valuable editor. But you have a history of edit-warring. The edit warring generates blocks, and makes neutral people lose patience with you. If you keep this up the blocks will get longer and longer. You will think it quite unfair if the other editor gets blocked for a day (or not at all) and you get blocked for a year, for doing exactly the same thing. Neither of us want this.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddy1 has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Misplaced Pages, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

thanks for your kind words, and that pork pie looks delicious!.-- altetendekrabbe  10:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ankh.Morpork 13:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dhimmi

You make some serious accusations about User:AnkhMorpork in these edits. I will block you if you don't retract them and apologize, unless you can produce examples in which he has misrepresented sources. I give you 24 hours in which to comply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

he did indeed misrepresent sources at the british-pakistani page . the case was discussed on ani . i *think* he is guilty of this also on the dhimmi-page. however, i'll retract the comment since you asked me to. btw, he *followed* my edits after the confrontation on the british-pakistani page, and began *edit warring* together with user shrike on the dhimmi-page. what are you gonna do about that? i have the diffs if you want.-- altetendekrabbe  14:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see a pattern of "tag-team" edit-warring at Dhimmi. If you think it's a problem, please show me some diffs. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

sure, right after the british-pakistani conflict ankhmorpork reverted me on the dhimmi-page under the charge of vandalism , adding content from rodney stark, a fringe "scholar" , who whitewashes the crusaders' behavior towards muslims and jews, and who has weird ideas about evolution. clearly, ankhmorpork made a blind revert to take revenge as he was totally discredited and suffered a total fiasco on the british-pakistani issue. he then proceeded to post a bugos warning on my talk page. the warning was subsequently removed by another user who also warned ankmorpork not to misuse blocking templates. ankmorpork made a 2. revert under another pre-text. when i revert him again, shrike came out of nowhere and continued ankmorpork's edit war. note that none of them had edited this page before. they began an edit war right after their fiasco on the british pakistani page where their attempt to associate the british-pakistani community with child abuse failed miserably.

edit warring, a clear violation of wp:brd, violation of wp:point... a classic example of tag-teaming. they displayed precisely the same behavior on the british pakistani-page as well. highly contentious content was forced into the article by user ankmorpork and user shrike by an edit war. note neither ankmorpork nor shrike had made any edits on that page before either. i can provide diffs if you want.

things calmed down for a month and then suddenly ankhmorpork began the edit war again , , joining hands with two other editors, frotz and estlandia, who also were re-adding stark. hence, violation of wp:brd and edit warring. shrike stayed out of the latest edit war on the dhimmi-page but supported, as always, his comrade on the talk page. on the other hand, he stalked my edits and participated in another conflict i was involved in . others have also noticed shrike's bad habit of hounding, . several other editors have made similar complaints about ankhmorpork and shrike. i can provide diffs for that as well. other editors have now removed the stark nonsense from the dhimmi-page but i suspect that ankhmorpork and shrike will continue their childish activities unless some administrative action is taken. -- altetendekrabbe  19:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

here is another stalker, user frotz, reverting me everywhere. he is guilty of edit warring and is violating wp:brd. he is also terming fringe writers as rs . in addition, he contributed to ankhmorpork's edit war on the dhimmi-page, while lying in the edit summary. note that he also followed me from another page. he is quite open about his anti-islamic pov .-- altetendekrabbe  22:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your allegations are very serious. If you believe them, I recommend you take them to the appropriate noticeboard. Otherwise, please stop making such accusations.

Meanwhile, I notice that you are once again edit-warring on multiple articles. Please stop or you will be blocked permanently. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

did you read what i wrote? i am not edit warring! check the edits. it is user frotz who is *following me around*, reverting me blindly on articles he never has edited before. he is the one who is edit warring by not following wp:brd. what noticeboard do you suggest i take this matter to?-- altetendekrabbe  08:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

do you see a pattern here?. or here ? ankh, frotz, estlandia, again and again and again.-- altetendekrabbe  08:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD is an essay, and "violating" it is not a valid reason to edit war. If you feel harassed, file a complaint at WP:ANI. In the meantime, please stop edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

excuse me, why don't you ask ankh and his gang to stop edit warring as well?-- altetendekrabbe  18:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

They're not edit-warring; you are. Look at the revision histories of Criticism of Muhammad and Criticism of the Quran, where you made three reverts, as well as Criticism of Islam and Dhimmi, where you've made two. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, look closer on those pages, and check how many edits they had in total before they began reverting me. they follow my edits, starting edit wars wherever i go. ankh has been reverted several times on the dhimmi-page as well. you are now allowing wp:hounding.-- altetendekrabbe  19:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think there is tag-team editing or Wikihounding going on, take your complaint to WP:ANI. It does not give you an excuse to edit war. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

please, can't you see what's going on? i provided you diffs. it's beyond any doubt that ankh & co are following my edits. you should at least warn ankh & co... or is that too much to ask for?-- altetendekrabbe  19:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Altetendekrabbe asked me on my talk page to take a look at this thread, probably because I made an edit at Dhimmi. Looking over the recent history of the relevant articles, as well as some of the longer contributions of the other users, here's what I think.

1. I don't think Frotz is "stalking" you, he seems to have had "Criticism of Muhammad" on his userspace as one of his watched articles for awhile.
2. I'm not sure if AnkhMorph is stalking you - possibly - though he definitely seems to be going around trying to stir up lots of trouble on lots of Islam related articles, with a very strong anti-Islam POV.
3. Estlandia (disclosure, I've had numerous arguments with him in the past) probably is stalking you a little bit at this point, as in looking up your recent edits, then going in to revert them. Though he probably got embroiled in this all on his own - he's also got a POV thing going.

So I don't know if there's out right stalking going on but

1. By this point these users have found each other and they are tag-teaming to some extent (though, smartly they're doing it more across several articles rather than a single article). Hell. I've tagged team before, so I know what it looks like.
2. They are, individually or together, trying to provoke you into edit warring and get you blocked. Particularly AnkhMorph seems to be pretty good at playing this game ("I don't find this or that satisfactory" etc.).
3. But you are letting yourself get baited. Take your time in working out these conflicts. When they use crappy sources bring it up on RS and other venues. Etc.
4. And in regard to particular sources, I do agree with you that Islam: What the West Needs to Know is a fringe film that does not need to be spammed into all these articles. I've never heard of it before today, but looking it up, it was produced by a unknown company and promoted by some pretty sketchy organizations (including this ""American Film Renaissance Festival" and this "American Freedom Alliance").

Basically, I hate to tell you this but if you keep just reverting they're gonna succeed in getting you into trouble. This does need to be discussed on talk pages, other people should be brought into the discussion (otherwise they'll out shout you) and it needs to be dealt with patience.

VolunteerMarek 23:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your advice. in other words, they are gaming the system and are involved in hounding when opportunity arises.-- altetendekrabbe  05:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

update: tag-teaming proven .-- altetendekrabbe  09:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry for replying late... if you suspect some editors are following your edits, it would be a good idea to compile 5-10 diffs which form a pattern and take it to ANI and keeping the discussion to just that. It might get noticed better by the admins that way. If they are editwarring without discussing you might point out WP:NINJA to the admins checking it out. Leave me a note if you needed the comment on another aspect too. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Altetendekrabbe, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

VolunteerMarek 16:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dhimmitude

Please revert yourself as you broke 3RR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Z10 Kuru (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

i have been blocked for no reason whatsoever by admin kuru. i have not violated any rules, as confirmed by other admins here, and if i am blocked, user shrike should also be blocked, as pointed out by two other administrators. by unilaterally blocking me admin kuru has taken side with the other party in the dispute. i suggest kuru explains himself on the noticeboard. this is block is unfair, and i am now cut off from an ongoing discussion. i have been tag-teamed against, hounded. just because i don't report this harassment it doesn't mean that others don't notice it. here is another discussion, confirming tag-teaming, . and, i *did not break the 3-rr*! this is confirmed by other admins. please. check the diffs, and you'll see that two of the edits are unrelated. as i wrote on the noticeboard:.shrike is edit warring against consensus. he is added unrelated reverts to his diff-list (the 2. and 5. diff). he removed sourced content. my revert was totally justified (which amounts to a *single* revert of his *disruptive* edit.) shrike became *disruptive* because his misrepresentation of sources, his edit warring allegations ended in a total failure (before kuru came along and blocked me). he is deliberately made new disruptive edits so that he get reverted... this is a blatant attempt to game the system. shrike should be blocked for disruptive editing. as noted by admin Penwhale i did not break the 3-rr as the 2. diff is totally unrelated to the others. update: user estlandia has now removed content, right after me getting blocked. he is one of the tag-teamers. . -- altetendekrabbe  11:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You clearly did break 3RR, and have been edit-warring quite consistently. The poor behaviour of editors on the other side (which I still agree has been tendentious to a worrying degree) can't permanently excuse this. I do hope it should have been clear that my intervention at WP:AN3 the other day was not meant to encourage you to continue with the many reverts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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.

There is a very clear explanation of the block at the link you provided; it has been there since about two minutes after this block and well before you posted this request. If you can point out a 3RR violation to back up your accusations against one of the three other people you were in a dispute with, I would be delighted to review. Kuru (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can point out a 3RR violation to back up your accusations against one of the three other people you were in a dispute with, I would be delighted to review. - Kuru, are you daft or something? The whole point of tag-team edit warring is that users collaborate to AVOID violating 3RR and try and bait a user they're tag teaming against into breaking it so as to get him blocked (and you were dumb enough to facilitate this for them). It's been amply documented that Frotz, Shrike and Estlandia have been tag teaming against altetendekrabbe. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise warned them about it at WP:3RR previously. So OF COURSE he's not going to be able to point out a 3RR violation by any one of those users! That's the whole freakin' point of tag teaming! Seriously, this is so incredibly stupid it's making my head spin.VolunteerMarek 11:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Consider yourself fortunate this is only a month (which is an escalation from previous blocks). Your WP:TE is blatant. Your attempts after being rightly reported for 3RR to then discredit your accuser by canvassing some favourite friends was even more disruptive. You're either going to get how this projects works, or not - if not, give up now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is idiotic. You morons just rewarded gaming and disruptive behavior by a group obnoxious tag teamers, who've been trying to get this user for a month now. I'm sorry BWilkins but it's very obvious that YOU are the one who doesn't get how this project (really) works. You're clueless.

And people wonder why this project is dying. Maybe cuz the admin corps consists of twits.VolunteerMarek 11:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And what the hell is this: ". Bwilkins (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Altetendekrabbe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:32:27 GMT (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎(Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: WP:NPA while blocked)". Did you just block the user merely for posting an unblock request???

Are you open to recall or do I take this to AN/I? VolunteerMarek 11:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

• User:Altetendekrabbe I have re-enabled your talkpage access ... based on parsing, it appeared that two people had commented - it turns out that you were not the one who did the egregious NPA. My apologies to you for believing it was you, and I have noted such apology as I restored talkpage access (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@kuru, user estlandia has now removed content, right after you blocked me . here is another discussion, confirming tag-teaming, . and, i *did not break the 3-rr*! this is confirmed by other admins. please. check the diffs, and you'll see that two of the edits are unrelated. as i wrote on the noticeboard:.shrike is edit warring against consensus. he is added unrelated reverts to his diff-list (the 2. and 5. diff). he removed sourced content. my revert was totally justified (which amounts to a *single* revert of his *disruptive* edit.) shrike became *disruptive* because his misrepresentation of sources, his edit warring allegations ended in a total failure (before you came along and blocked me). he is deliberately made new disruptive edits so that he get reverted... this is a blatant attempt to game the system. shrike should be blocked for disruptive editing. as noted by admin Penwhale i did not break the 3-rr as the 2. diff is totally unrelated to the others.-- altetendekrabbe  12:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not endorsing or challenging the block as I do not have all the facts; however, I would like to clear up one issue. Altetendekrabbe, you keep arguing that you did not break 3RR because your some of your reverts were unrelated. 3RR states that if you make more than three reverts on a page, you can be blocked and, crucially, a revert counts as removing an edit "whether involving the same or different material each time" (my emphasis). Even if some of your reverts were for a completely different issue, you still made four reverts to that page in 24 hours and so you did break 3RR. As I said, I will not comment on the block or the accusation of tag-teaming because I do not have all the facts; nevertheless, you did break 3RR. ItsZippy 12:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

sorry, but shrike removed long-standing content so that he could be *reverted*, don't you get it? he is playing games and now you're letting him escape. in another revert, i reverted back in a reliable secondary source which was removed by *another* user. i can also add estlandia's attempt to tag-team here, and here ... and he doesn't even participate in the discussions. you are now actually encouraging tag-teaming as a way to push a particular pov, leaving lone editors like myself defenseless. -- altetendekrabbe  14:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise, what is troubling about the whole situation is the fact the tag-teaming party of shrike and estlandia escaped this attempt as well. their gaming of the rules are so blatant and so clear that it warrants long bans on them as well. to block me for one whole month for fighting against removal of sourced content, fighting against misrepresentation of sources by user shrike (see talk on the dhimmitude page), and fighting against the blatant tag-teaming is just mind blowing. if shrike and estlandia are not blocked then at least reduce my sentence.-- altetendekrabbe  14:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello altetendekrabbe. Please try to take this advice to heart. Misplaced Pages is filled with people who play a game, and they play it very well. They know what will get them blocked, they know what will get others blocked. They know that the 3RR is a "bright line" and that if they can team up with another user they can escape crossing that line while enticing a lone user to do so. They know that admins are reluctant to actually look at the content of what is being reverted, so they have no qualms putting in pure horseshit into an encyclopedia article. They know that there is no effective means of enforcing the policies that, if this place (and its admins) were actually serious about making an "encyclopedia", actually matter, those being the content policies. You got suckered into believing that WP:NPOV and WP:RS matter as much as WP:EW and WP:CIVIL. They dont, and they never have.

When you come across an issue in which several users are violating the content policies, stop reverting. Just accept that the article is garbage for the time being, which really shouldn't get you down as most articles on Misplaced Pages are garbage. Get help from others, do not try to fix the problem yourself. Start an WP:RFC, go to WP:NPOV/N and WP:RS/N, do whatever you can to get other editors involved. That is the only way to deal with problems, and problem users, like this. If you can get several uninvolved editors to form a consensus and others continue to put garbage into an article, at that point they can be dealt with through administrative channels. But if you let them stoke an edit-war and get you past that "bright line" all that will happen is what just happened.

As a rule of thumb, if you make an edit, including a revert, that is reverted, do not re-revert. Go to the talk page and leave the contested material in the article for the time being. If the talk page does not have uninvolved editors chiming in, raise the issue at a content noticeboard. If you need more outside intervention, open an RFC. But dont play that game that others are playing. You will lose if you do so. Take care, nableezy - 20:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks, i'll certainly heed your advice. i usually don't use administrative noticeboards even when i'm harassed and hounded. but that has to change from now on.-- altetendekrabbe  20:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The most important thing you can do from now on is not perform more than 1 revert. Not even 1 revert a day, but if you make one revert and it is reverted, stop right there. Dont revert again until you know that there is a consensus for your position from uninvolved editors. In fact, if you were to make a commitment to doing that now, I dont see why you couldnt be unblocked right away. Do not forget, many others are just playing a game. Dont play it with them. nableezy - 21:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

well you're right. lately, i have used most of my time digging up sources to show how shrike has misrepresented them. i get into edit wars with shrike & co due to frustration. it's quite frustrating to watch shrike and others blatantly misrepresent the sources they use. the worse case was on the british pakistani-page where shrike&co attempted to malign a whole racial group. but, yes, investigating destructive editors like shrike&co by digging up sources, and use talk-pages is far more productive than get into fights with these guys. i'm always outnumbered 4 to 1. -- altetendekrabbe  21:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)