User talk:Distributor108/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Distributor108. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A tag has been placed on File:Dakshina lanka Highway3.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Dakshina lanka Highway2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Dakshina lanka Highway1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The request for formal mediation concerning Sri Lanka, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for blatant vandalism and combative approach to edting, as you did at Sri Lanka. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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).

Distributor108 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

What vandalism? user Boing! said Zebedee can consider DRN being filed on him Distributor108 (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The threatening, accusatory and combative tone of your unblock request indicate that you likely do not understand the reasons you were blocked and will continue the behavior that has resulted in multiple blocks. --Trödel 13:25, 17 April 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.

Actually, the vandalism claim is a mistake; a different user, User:Joelcres, added your name all over the article. I have since blocked that account indefinitely for vandalism. However, in the meantime, the issue has been raised at WP:ANI, and a number of editors are worried more generally about your battleground mentality, your inappropriate use of dispute resolution, your edit warring, and, most recently, your attempt to run for administrator status, apparently thinking falsely this would give you an edge in your editing of Sri Lanka. As I said on the articles talk page in response to your response to my full protection of that article, I seriously considered blocking you rather than fully protecting the article, as your edit warring was the main cause of the problem.

Given the concerns that others have expressed, and the fact that only 1/2 of Boing!'s block notice is wrong, I'm not comfortable unblocking you at the moment. I am going to ask for Boing!'s input given the error; I've also raised the point at the ANI discussion. You can read that discussion at WP:ANI#Sri Lanka; if you have anything you wish to contribute to that discussion, you can do so here and I or another editor will copy it over for you.

In the meantime, I think that many people might be more willing to consider an unblock if you would address the non-vandalism concerns above. If you are unblocked, will you stop your disruptive editing? Will you slow down your editing, consider sourcing more carefully, stop being combative, etc.? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was having technical problems with that article, and every time I tried to do a diff or look at a previous revision, I got a server timeout. So I apologise for misidentifying the author of that specific vandalism. But I did also look back at Distributor108's history, and I saw evidence of a long-standing battleground approach, and so I think some sort of block was warranted, even if I got the immediate event wrong. Anyway, I'm happy for any admin to unblock without consulting me, if they feel they have enough of a commitment to approach editing in a more constructive and collegial manner. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee claim that I have a 'combat attitude' is debatable, I don't believe I do. And given the Admin Boing! said Zebedee carelessness I should be unblocked immediately. Also I didn't see the vandalism earlier, but this constitutes defamation, I want a global announcement on the ANI informing all other admins that may have seen this ANI that I was not responsible for the blatant vandalism and it was due to Admin false accusation Boing! said Zebedee. I don't appreciate any of the comments from Dennis Brown and Ravensfire I would like an apology from both of them for their offensive and degrading comments directed towards me. Also comment 10 [here] was added after the RfA was closed at 14:39, 16 April 2012‎, disobeying clear warnings at the top and buttom of the paged " The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page. "Distributor108 (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when your response to what appears to be an honest mistake is to angrily demand that every user be directed to an ANI announcement of your innocence... well, it's hard to disagree about what Boing termed as your combative attitude. I do concur, however, that you did not vandalize the article as such - and I have changed the settings on your block to reflect this. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee has admitted to the mistake on ANI, which you can see by reading the thread I linked to above. The comments from Dennis Brown and Ravensfire are perfectly appropriate comments for ANI--they attempt to substantiate the claims regarding more general problems with your editing, and no apologies are are owed to you. I have reverted the additional comment on the RfA; it doesn't really matter, since it's not like it's a page others will see, but, on principle, removing it is correct.

Now, onto the bigger issue: finding out whether you can be unblocked. Ultraexactzz has modified the block rationale, and thus it is clear in the logs that you are no longer blocked for vandalism. However, the consensus at ANI, currently, is that the block for disruptive editing is appropriate. So, the question is, are you willing to do what is necessary to be unblocked? I am willing to work with you to see if we can develop conditions under which you can be unblocked, but before we can do that, you're going to need to start to give some indication that you understand why you were blocked in the first place. I'm not asking you to grovel, or to apologize just for the sake of apologizing. But I am asking you to take a look at what I said above, what I said on Talk:Sri Lanka, and what other editors said on WP:ANI#Sri Lanka. If you're absolutely certain that you are 100% right and every other editor commenting is wrong...well, then you'll probably not be editing here anymore. So take some time. You're probably pretty upset right now, so this may even be something that you want to think about for a while. Once you want to start to address some of the underlying problems, we can see if there is a way to proceed. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully endorse Qwyrxian, especially regarding taking some time to reflect. I hope that you will be able to be unblocked in the future. --Trödel 15:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I need some time for myself to cool off at the moment, when I'm ready I'll take you up on your offer to work together to develop condition for my unblock also I would like a develop a policy to which Sri_lanka page will be edited in the future. In the mean time, could you revert the Sri_lanka article to the revision which had the dispute notices, and add the line "however Buddhism is placed at the foremost place, and it is also a constitutional obligation of the state to protect the Buddha Sasana doctrine, all other religions and faiths have the right to practice under the purview of Buddhism.", It would be most appreciated if you could discuss context of the constitutional paragraph with the inclusion of 'under the purview of Buddhism.' with the other editors. Thats all for now Thanks Distributor108 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, for 3 reasons: First, I cannot both edit the article and act as a neutral admin on it. Second, you cannot edit by proxy while blocked. Third, there is no consensus on the article talk page for your position. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There not consensus for the part of the line 'under the purview of Buddhism.', for the rest of it there is consensus, if you read the constitution it says it there perfectly word for word. I was asking you to discuss the line 'under the purview of Buddhism.' with the context of the constitution with the other editors. And there dispute warning is pretty resonable considering there are multply sources to indicate the content is at dispute, and the dispute warnings also having been endorsed by Ravensfire. Distributor108 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if you are correct on that point, the first two points still stand. At this point, you are not editing the article, and cannot use me or any other editor as a vessel to do that. If other editors still believe there is a consensus for those tags (or the other changes), then they are free to add them back to the article. But it will be up to them, not due to your request while you remain blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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).

Distributor108 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

OK, I accept your offer, I'm willing to work with you to develop a condition for my unblock. First I'm still confused as what my 'combative attitude' is, could you show me examples of diffs, of where i displayed such 'combative attitude' and show me the correct way of responding. Distributor108 (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you honestly can't see that your attitude is combative, then I doubt that you have the competence to overcome the problems your editing has displayed. You don't need diffs to show your combative attitude: just look at your posts to this page since your block. Add that to all the past problems with your editing, including blatantly trying to become an admin so that you can abuse admin tools to your advantage in a dispute, numerous copyright infringements, persistent edit warring, etc etc etc, and I see no reason to suppose that unblocking you is likely to be a net positive for the project. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 18 April 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.

Distributor108, I'll respond in more detail later with steps forward. In the meantime, is there any chance that you could archive some of the stuff on this talk page? Especially all of the no-longer relevant deletion notices; it would make it easier to see what info is current. This is not at all a requirement, just something that I think makes it easier to handle user's talk pages. However, if you do remove some of the info, do be sure to keep this section (you have to maintain the block notice and all unblock requests until such time as you are unblocked). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK done, please move the archived content to the archive page, as I cannot do that due to the false block issued by talk. Distributor108 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please be advised that the "Sri Lanka Demographics" arbitration case, to which you were named as a party, has been declined. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC).