• Wikipedia:Template_index: Cleanup (#Neutrality_and_factual_accuracy, etc)
• Meta Category:Editor handbook

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 15 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bosnian genocide denial into Milorad Dodik. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa, I was sort of aware of this but didn't know that it's required to do something in that regard. So, basically, this copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution would suffice and can be used as a template in edit-summary (if copied text is short or not substantial) and in TP (if there is a lot of copied text). I think that in this case - Bosnian genocide denial > Milorad Dodik - I am a sole contributor of copied text, and it is not particularly intricate narrative it's more of a listing, but if I understood correctly, in case of being sole contributor then, maybe, it could be unnecessary. Please, just to be on the safe side, let me know if I understood this correctly? Thanks again, and stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Santasa99. The edit summary is mandatory whether you place a template on the talk page or not. The talk page template is optional. You are correct that if you are the sole author, attribution is not required, but it's still helpful for patrolling admins if you do so. — Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I know that edit summary is mandatory on its own, that's elemental, and yes, it could be that I have done it before. However I am not sure that I am able to remember where, but if I do I will put this temp to appropriate TP. Also, most likely, when and if i used bits of text from one article for writing in another, then, it was again probably my own. Anyhow, I will be sure to use it every time I am reusing any amount of text from now on. Cheers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Bosnia and Herzegovina topic area. Due to past disruption in this topic area is placed under WP:ARBEE and WP:ARBMAC, which means more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before you pasted this template on my TP you should have read the instructions that come with the template and advise not to do this if you can assume that the editor already knows that they edit in scope under ARBCOM sanctions, and it should have been very clear to you that I am well aware that the topic area in which I contribute is under ARBEE. It is particularly inappropriate to this is in order to kind of retaliate in same manner. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case would you mind giving me few inputs on my 60 hours block, before I consider appeal? I was kind of thinking, maybe, to appeal unless this inquiry dissuade me from it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I blocked you for 60 hours because the last time you did it, I blocked you for 36.

I have nothing to say about whether you appeal, per procedure. If another admin thinks that was too much, or that you didn't violate 3RR, they may unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did violate 3RR; I am fully responsible and regret it for being so reckless, but even more so for being so naive. What interest me is that you proceeded with a block despite reporting editor practically admitting taking me for a ride on those reverts - in his words in 3RR report: "I don't mind your "layout" changes too much" - so, he was edit-warring for nothing, while not actually minding my changes too much, all the while pressuring me on TP with unrelated justification for his unnecessary reverts; why on earth was he reverting them, and why on the pretext of something inconsequential and already dropped (he was reverting my edit constantly explaining it with dispute over non-existant section "See also" and dragging me down to it like this me, him, me, him) !? Before that he never, for instance, considered WP:REVONLY; I initiated TP discussion but he never matched his responses to evoked points, and even completely missed the point in his post in report ("other editor") - it's like went in one ear and out the other. It's not mine to say if he was deliberately avoiding to pinpoint what was actually in dispute or it's maybe how he comprehends the world around him, but either way it was a lost thread every time which never gave a chance to a resolution. So, why those reverts, and then report, why it did not boomeranged under all these circumstances (he had no more reason to make fourth revert even before I did), and so on. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:04, 28 May 2023 (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).

Santasa99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

G'day to all. I would like to ask for a review of my 60 hours block by Daniel Case. I am not here to persuade you that I don't bear clear and full responsibility for breaking 3RR, but I feel, with all due respect to blocking admin Daniel, that block is too severely imposed and one-sided, without, at least, some consideration for the circumstances. It is priority to assess the risk and 1) the risk that I could continue to engage in edit-warring and/or disrupt the page and the project are literally nonexistent, not only because I usually successfully restrain myself and avoid the trap of edit-warring despite being participant (for more than a 15 long yr. without single sanction) in highly sensitive and controversial topic area, which is Balkans, but also the edits I contributed to the article which ultimately led to reverts between me and the reporting editor and this block, are actually accepted by reporting editor himself now that I am blocked. By reporting editor's own admission my edits were actually never that contentious in his view -as he said, "I don't mind your "layout changes too much", which is strangely interesting because reporting editor too broke the 3RR over these very edits even before me. So, why than all the reverts and edit-warring, meanwhile I get blocked for edits that didn't matter to opposing editor who invested time and effort to remove them while I was on the page, but now, they sit there in article undisturbed and uncontested !? In a way I got into 3RR and received a block over nothing, over edits which actually never bothered editor in the first place; why was I compelled to defend my edits from reverts by reverting myself; why it did not boomeranged under all these circumstances (he had no more reason to make fourth revert than I did). Or in other words reporting editor was practically edit-warred over nothing, while not actually mind my changes too much, all the while pressuring me on TP with unrelated justification for his, at this point, unnecessary reverts; why on earth was he doing all that, and why he used something inconsequential and already dropped on first two of 2x2 reverts as a pretext (here, it must be clarified that reporting editor was reverting my contribution while justifying it with something else, with explaining how he does not accept links in section "See also", which I stopped including after second revert maybe day before, but he continued to remove my contribution on structuring article which was in layout mess - in other words, he was taking me for a ride at that article and its TP, constantly focusing on non-existant and irrelevant - like this me, him, me, him) !? This felt like deliberate avoidance to pinpoint what was actually in dispute or it's maybe how he comprehends the world around him, either way dispute resolution never got a chance. And 2) 3RR was honest mistake, with those two sets of 2x2 reverts coming on two different afternoons Thak you. --౪ Santa ౪^99°
(Inserted) Adendum: Only today, after this block was imposed, did the reporting editor properly approach collaboration by using WP:REVONLY to fix only those parts of my contribution he thought needed fixing, instead unnecessarily and provocatively going full reverts while using our interaction to offer bogus explanations as noted above (see article history for attribution).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I might have removed the block if this had been your first one, and if it didn't involve a controversial topic area. But by your own admission you failed to restrain yourself (you say "I usually successfully restrain myself and avoid the trap of edit-warring") so I'm not really clear on what will be different with the next editing dispute you get in. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (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.

Hello 331dot, and thanks for the review. My remark "I usually successfully restrain myself and avoid the trap of edit-warring" means that as long as it is under my control I do not fall into this trap, which in practice means that in my 15 long years of participation in WP:ARBEE scope I have never been blocked once, until some six months ago when the same admin imposed my first-ever block without giving me opportunity to offer any kind of response, but one which was ultimately lifted on my appeal. So, now there is another unknown in this case (to me, at least, because I tried to find similar situation but failed), and that's being the situation where admin uses (their) earlier successfully appealed block to extend on second - is that even proper procedure, and so on. Also, if it doesn't bother you too much, I would really appreciate to hear your opinion on, not exactly boomerang, but the fact that reverting between two of us was not one-sided and that reporting editor breached the 3RR some 20 minutes before I did - if I am not mistaken, in cases such as this, it usually goes both ways, whether it's blocking or a just warning, the sanction is extended to both participants. On closer and fair inspection, what really differentiates us, except that the reporting editor was faster and more motivated to make a report. Anyhow, thanks, I appreciate your review.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed your comment outside the block review; if you used the reply function, that shouldn't be done in such cases. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, sorry, honest mistake. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may comment more later, I'm not presently in a position too. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, 331dot, there's no rush. This was always about a principle and a feeling, and maybe it just my own personal feeling, that the case is at least to some extent bizarre and unusual, and it is not pleasant to be seemingly singled out in such a situation - it can be humiliating. In any other situation, I wouldn't even pursue appeals, if it was about me being some kind of edit-warrior and if this was some kind of big edit-war over something extremely sensitive. It's a very bizarre confrontation over a trivial matter, it's wasn't one-sided, and it's completely bewildering. When you get the time and if you are willing, your inputs would of course be greatly appreciated - there are admins who would be unwilling to extend the most basic courtesy of offering any kind of response, let alone an informative comment, so any response is most welcome. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I can quickly say that a point in your favor was admitting that you violated 3RR. But when an admin(well, I at least) reviews an unblock request for edit warring, there are usually two things we look for:

1. admitting it occurred (which you did)
2. telling how you will avoid edit warring in the future, usually by describing how you will handle editing disputes. You admitted that you failed to restrain yourself- which is fine, as we're humans and not perfect- but in order to be convinced the disruption of edit warring will end, I need to know what steps you will take to better avoid warring. That could be dispute resolution measures, avoiding topic areas where you might be prone to edit warring, things like that.

There are usually two things that should not happen in a request:

1. giving the entire detailed background. A brief synopsis is sufficient- as the exact details of a dispute do not usually matter. It might if you take further steps(see next point) but not in an unblock request.
2. telling how others edit warred with you and weren't treated the same. Only you can control your actions, and that's all your request should discuss. If you feel other users were not treated the same or you were treated unfairly, that should be discussed at WP:ANI once the block is over/removed.

I hope this helps you. You are welcome to make another request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, this block will expire before anyone tries to review it. My attention was anyway directed on the arbitrariness of how things went through with Daniel twice, which obviously can't be addressed through personal experience, etc. Rather, I owe you a thanks for the effort you put in and the comprehensive explanation, I really appreciate it. Only, I didn't say, or at least it was not my intention to say that I can't refrain from edit-warring, I don't know how you came to understand my remarks in that way, but I can't rule out my English language limitation in that sense perhaps; I wanted to send a message that would say exactly the opposite - my best recipe for handling disputes is my experience going through the pitfalls of the Balkan scope under WP:ARBEE for15 long years without putting myself in a situation to be blocked for edit-warring, and that my first block came in December by the same admin, but it was lifted on my appeal, but not on lenience ground but rather on extreme circumstances (meatpuppetry). Thanks, and take care. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot would you be kind to shed some more light, specifically on this suggestion about ANI you mentioned (last line under 2.above), wouldn't such a discussion necessarily involve a critical assessment of the admin's ruling or even judgement, would that be out of ANI scope, or would that be a proper forum then, and so on? If I would, say, decide to open an ANI, I would certainly like to avoid any unnecessary fuss on mistaken scope and object of ANI. Our guidelines and policies are sometimes one thing and our practices, sometimes, quite another. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is where issues regarding user behavior- including admins- are discussed. This will involve reviewing the actions of all involved(including you) to see if policies were violated or applied improperly. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]