User talk:Cubancigar11

May 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Roscelese. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Equality before the law. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no edit war. There was been personal attacks, revert of sourced material as well as constact refusal to engage on the talk page. People are free to raise issues with the content or help fixing it, but not reverting it.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cubancigar11 reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2015 (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).

Cubancigar11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block is one sided, without looking at facts, or without letting me put my side either. # 10:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC) I started discussion, 19:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC) I get personal abuse, direct quote from the journal is reverted saying it is my opinion. # 03:08, 8 May 2015 I added sources and expand section to pacify any objection. # 02:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Yet a third user comes along, reverts me without engaging on talk page, now calling the exact source as weasel words. I move to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but before I can submit my list of changes, I am reported and blocked. It is a very clear case of WP:CABAL and the administrator going about things the routing way. The reason given behind block itself is false, since I have been continuously asking people to voice their concern on talk page or edit the page correcting the issue, but the reporters have unscrupulously refused to engage and used the process for abuse. Cubancigar11 (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your block is for edit warring; you'll need to address that and only that in any unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:24, 8 May 2015 (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.

You were blocked for straightforward and aggressive edit-warring, accompanied by personal attacks on other editors. Your unblock request is a continuation of that pattern. Please read WP:EW for a discussion of what you've been doing and why you've been blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me citation where I have done 'personal attacks'? Even the edit war request doesn't mention that. Adding sources because someone complains about 'unsourced commentary' is not aggressive behavior, neither is request to unblock.Cubancigar11 (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC) As a learned administrator, kindly also let me know: 1. What steps should I take when I am being personally attacked? 2. What steps should I take when an editor refuses to engage on talk page and blindly reverts the changes being made, while they are being made, in a span of 5-10 minutes. 3. When a small group of users complain of being aggressive and others do not, where shall I take it?[reply]

Learned administrator couldn't find a word to add :) The only thing they knew is to show who wields the power, not who has earned it.

This experiment has been extremely successful in demonstrating why Wikipedia is failing to attract new users and why majority of edits are on Wikipedia are minors. The structural problems Wikipedia has is simply a reflection of structural problems that force people to spend countless hours on Wikipedia. Powerlessness in real life is reflected in abuse of (a very fictional) power in Wikipedia. It is evident that to revive Wikipedia into a force that it was 10 years ago, long term users must be kicked out and their powers taken away. The real choice in front of Wikipedia is:

To be more controlled and thus authoritative.
To be more open and big, sacrificing the goal of being an authority in the process.

In my personal opinion, Wikipedia by its very nature cannot be authoritative, and so choosing (1) will result in only loss, no gain. As can be seen above by the behavior of a couple of administrators as well as the users who they have supported, Wikipedia administration has chose to the path of (1). In the process of retaining existing users, Wikipedia has sacrificed new users as well as growth.

This is very strange, considering Wikipedia isn't actually a user-base driven product.

The implication is obvious. The vacuum created by lack of money is being filled with power. As power isn't actually a necessity to have a Wikipedia - there must be something - or someone - who is infusing it without a cause. Guess what or who is it?--Cubancigar11 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86[edit]

I saw your recent dispute with Roscelese, and was fascinated to see the parallels with what I have encountered with her. Recently, I have submitted something to WP:ANI, to ask for their intervention. You might find my submission of interest; it has the title of this section. EllieTea (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anupamsr. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]