Verb3k
Hello, Verb3k and welcome to Wikipedia.
I'm calling in to inform you that your edits to WebM article is reverted, since they were against Wikipedia:Neutrality. Please let's me be frank: In the software section of WebM article, you must put the fact as straightforward as possible. So, mention of Media Foundation is not necessary. Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform, so please cut the advertising nonsense regarding Google and Microsoft collaborating. The fact is what Dean Hachamovitch stated: "IE9 supports HTML5 video using WebM for Windows customers who install third-party WebM support."
Never be tricked by advertising sentences like "Today IE9 can play HTML5 video in both the industry-standard H.264 format and the newer WebM format." Yes, it can but not natively.
Please be careful with the neutrality of your edits: There has been recent hot discussion on the same topic. Fleet Command (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- So, you have decided to ignore BOLD, revert, discuss cycle by refusing to discuss the issue and are now engaged in Edit warring. If you continue, you may lose your editing privileges. Come now, Verb3K, let's be nice with each other and do this by the book. Just defend your point of view. We talk, and if we are not convinced, we resort to other civil methods of Dispute resolution. Fleet Command (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
March 2011
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WebM. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Fleet Command (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Abuse of multiple accounts
edit- WebM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Verb3k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2.89.25.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2.89.119.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive152#User:2.89.119.157 reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Semi)
Per your edits at WebM, it appears you are the same editor as 2.89.25.42 and 2.89.119.157. The article was semiprotected due to edit warring by those two IPs, and you then started using the Verb3k account. This account made its very first Wikipedia edit on March 8 just after semiprotection was imposed. Your account may be blocked for sockpuppetry, but you may respond at User talk:EdJohnston#Follow up of WebM incident if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see that you have resumed editing. If you do not respond to the sock charges, this account may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. This response does not adequately address the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Verb3k (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I've always edited as anonymous. My country's only ISP uses dynamic IP addresses. I've been one of the major editors of the WebM article since the release of the project in May 2010. I can give you multiple examples of edits I've done to the article since then, each of which having a different IP address. When ever the connection disconnects, or the modem is reset, I get a new IP. When the WebM article was blocked, I logged in with my account which I had for years (if you can check the creation date please do), and figured I had to do multiple edits for the account to be allowed to edit protected pages. I talked to Peter Symonds and explained the problem to him, and he has given me permission to edit the article. This allegation of ducking is false. It is the nature of my ISP, not me trying to act as multiple people.
Decline reason:
Even if we ignore the sockpuppetry issue, you have been edit warring via this account, which is enough reason for a block. However, that is not all, as it is clear that you have been using this account with the specific purpose of getting round editing restrictions which were put in place specifically to stop unacceptable editing which you had been doing. The fact that the IPs you have used have been dynamic, and therefore have varied, is completely irrelevant: the block would be no more and no less appropriate if you had used only one IP address. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2011 (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.
The allegation of sockpuppetry is not wrong. You see, the mere act of using an account and an IP address for editing is not bad at all and is not counted as sockpuppetry by itself. However, your IP addresses were temporarily stripped of their editing privileges due to your previous misconducts. You used your user account to circumvent this ban and to edit again. Now, that is sockpuppetry. Fleet Command (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where the "he gave me permission to edit the article" comes from. You did approach me but I advised sorting out your disputes before making further edits, so this is quite a large misrepresentation. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"I advised sorting out your disputes before making further edits," you didn't. Thanks anyway for telling me more about yourself; I have a better picture of Wikipedia admins now.
- Here's the first problem: whenever you edit an article as both an IP address AND with an account, that's WP:SOCK. Whenever an article gets locked to anonymous editors - or one of those IP addresses is blocked, and you login to an existing account to bypass the protection/block, then that is WP:EVADE. Of course, at all times, edit-warring is flat out forbidden. All 3 are blockable offenses, and the fact that you failed to communicate when asked to merely told the project that you weren't here to listen to wise counsel.
- Apparently we now have your attention, and it should never have taken a block to do so. I would be willing to reduce the block for 2 weeks, but only under the following conditions:
- you only edit Wikipedia using this account from this point forward - no anonymous editing permitted
- you stop taking ownership of articles
- you fully agree to and edit only according to the WP:BRD cycle
- you will use dispute resolution when editing conflicts occur
- You have a very valid, and very required block in place. Here's your way back to editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)