User talk:LarryTheShark

April 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Fluoridation by country. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry, you were blocked by Bbb23 for edit-warring at Fluoridation by country, and you now appear to be back at Water fluoridation attempting to get your changes in to this featured article by revert instead of by consensus-building. This is another warning against edit warring, if you continue down this path all that will happen is you will be blocked again, for longer. Zad68 12:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing controversial subjects

Hi Larry, just wanted to leave a note about a more constructive way to approach these things. Best to discuss edits to such articles on the talk page before the article, then others can comment and improve on your wording. This is a much more effective approach if you find all your edits being reverted. Regards, Lesion 10:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not sure why i have been blocked. i have been blocked with "no expiry set". i did not violate three-revert rule today. i got 1 message today warning me not to revert again if i don't want to get blocked for longer. which i obliged. and since then I have been engaged in discussions in the talk page of Water fluoridation article, when suddenly i got a block notice

Decline reason:

Were I in your situation I would have avoided making any major edits to the article, much less that, even if sourced, seem to be determined to introduce a point of view. But you did that this morning (well, morning my time anyway) and then reverted the revert. While I admit you did go to the talk page for a while afterwards, your edits, in particular the last one before the block, strongly suggest that you had your mind made up and were bound and determined to make the article reflect that. So I don't blame the admin for looking at this and thinking, oh no, here we go again (Well, him anyway ... for you I very much doubt that there will be any more "again"). — Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2014 (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.

Daniel Case, Kww: overly harsh imo. Editor has made 2 reverts today and then was starting to use the talk page. At least one of their edits (the only one that has been discussed so far) will probably go into the article. Note that they did not revert the current article version. Lesion 16:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take it up with him then. As I said, his talk page comments do not come across as someone willing to be collegial and collaborative (though to be fair once the revert warring stopped I wouldn't have blocked). Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

, I'm not being blocked for 'forcing my view in the article' i'm being blocked because of my well reasoned views on the talk page, especially when i'm challenging what the article is depicting as consensus when my high quality references show the opposite on certain subjects within the article. this block is preventing me even to make a case for the changes on the talk page. this cannot be depicted other than censorship. I'm especially alarmed by your Precrime policy. i got a warning today, and when i got the warning i complied.LarryTheShark (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well I pinged both... Note that user started only last month. Frequently there is culture shock when first editing especially when throwing abuse around is the order of the day on most of the rest of the internet. I think they were getting the point, that controversial wikipedia articles are built from polite and constructive discussion on the talk page, so I have to disagree that about the lack of potential for collaboration comment. Lesion 16:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with Lesion. This editor has not shown any indication that they understand they are misusing sources through selective quoting and ignoring sources already in the article. A collaborative project needs editors that will not push a POV, and they should stay blocked until they recognize that this behavior is unacceptable. Yobol (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This block is indefinite so it doesn't matter if they change any behavior. Lesion 17:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. An indefinitely blocked user can be unblocked if they convince an administrator or administrators (if it's better to have a consensus) that they have insight into their misconduct and credibly promise not to repeat it. (I haven't looked at the merits of the indefinite block.)--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I have come to understand the procedure of discourse, and dispute resolution on wikipedia, and don't plan to continue edit wars. Instead I would like to start a DRN on the subject that was the center of controversy. Thank you

Decline reason:

How do you mean, you would like to start a DRN on the subject? You already did start one, here, editing logged out. Only when another user at the noticeboard queried the use of an anonymous IP for this purpose did you post this second unblock request. You state at the DRN that you weren't aware anynymous editing was forbidden during a block. That's… unusual, and I'm afraid it stretches my WP:AGF to snapping point. What do you suppose is the point of blocks at all..? I also don't see any sign of you understanding why you were blocked, even though you state above that you "don't plan to continue edit wars"; at the DRN, just a few hours earlier, I see you expressing resentment of the block that "seemed to have a very strong censorship flavor to it." You are in no way ready to be unblocked, I'm sorry. You can request unblock again, but I strongly suggest you wait at least three months and absolutely do not edit Wikipedia whatsoever in the meantime. Now you know editing logged out is not allowed; I'd better tell you that creating a a new account to edit from while you're blocked, or sending a friend to edit for you, is also not allowed, in case you weren't aware of those things either. Bishonen | talk 10:27, 8 May 2014 (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.

@Bishonen: I don't appreciate your wrath. i am not a child.

As i wrote in the DRN i voluntarily revealed my blocked username. why would i do that if I didn't do the mistake in good faith? I could understand being blocked from article editing and talk page discussions, but was unaware this is forbidden in formal avenues on wikipedia. I haven't used this account since the block.

Yes for sure i feel the first block was unusual, especially in its timing and harshness. as one of the editors (who was a debate rival) also commented. But i understand now that a certain discourse and dispute procedure is the way to go on wikipedia. and that the level of tolerance is different than on other forums.

Not everybody is trying to weasel his way back from a block. please reconsider, it has been over a month since my first unblock request.

I am not sure if the right move is to wait for your reply, and if it is even possible to revert this second unblock decline, or should apply for a new unblock request. I don't plan to wait 3 months, i did not kill a baby or bounce a check, let's keep things in proportion. i believe you have very much overreacted in your response.

I will wait first and see if you respond. Thank you LarryTheShark (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly you can make a third unblock request right away to query my response and also, if you wish, to rephrase your own request and explain more fully how you intend to edit at Fluoridation and its talkpage. Just saying you won't continue to edit war is a bit minimal, you know — to edit collaboratively, work towards consensus, etc, entails more than merely not breaking the rule against edit warring. Filing a third request would mean getting a new uninvolved admin here to review it, which is obviously better than you and me continuing to argue about it. I'm sorry I came across as wrathful, that was not my intention. What I meant by waiting three months (actually six would be better) was that if it becomes clear this time around that admins agree to decline your request, you should then take a long break before you appeal again, if only to show than you can refrain from further socking. That's my advice. It's up to you whether you follow it, naturally. You have not been jailed, merely blocked from a private website, let's keep things in proportion. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You should be aware that repeated requests for unblocking on identical or very similar grounds, can lead to withdrawal of talk page access. You were blocked for edit warring, you recommenced edit warring immediately your block expired, and your reason for requesting unblock is essentially "but I am right!", an argument which pretty much never works. The best chance for unblocking is if you agree not to edit articles around water fluoridation. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The admin above is involved in the content dispute on the subject as a debate rival. I cannot see how it is ethical he is involving himself in the unblock procedure without disclosing this fact. And the reason for his request to keep the block and "we are right" is essentially WP:WORLDVIEW (specifically USA and the handful of countries heavily water fluoridated), to the point of even disregarding and censoring the EU official position on public water fluoridation. The legitimate way of discourse right now is to take it to DRN. LarryTheShark (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy making a comment on your user talk page is fine. Guy declining your unblock request would be a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Since only the former has occurred, there is no problem. Any editor is allowed to voice their opinion where they are not banned. -- Atama頭 19:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atama, It is unethical for him not to disclose the fact he is a debate rival on the subject (aka involved), especially when he is giving a negative opinion about me. This is a good reason not to assume good faithLarryTheShark (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

My second unblock request was declined in the past hour. I feel the Admin that declined did not give me a fair hearing before declining and was very quick to judge, please see above second request and my subsequent reply. i do not plan on to edit war (clearly its not effective lol). The contributions i wanted to add to the fluoridation articles are in the talk pages. I do feel there is a very strong bias in those articles , and a subsequent feeling that these articles are gate-kept to keep their pro fluoride bias. But now i know and understand that there are other avenues (such as DRN) to productively and legitimately tackle the problems i perceive to be there.

Decline reason:

It's good that you don't plan to engage in future edit wars, and that you want to restrict yourself to talk page discussions. However, you did engage in block evasion which was enough on its own to decline your unblock request. I'm also concerned about your accusations on this talk page about Guy "trying to make an editor submissive to your POV by administrative tools". Guy is just giving an opinion. You've continued to be combative even while blocked, which suggests that if unblocked you'll come charging out of the gates right back into battleground behavior, even if you live up to your pledge to stick to the article talk page. I just have too many concerns to unblock you. -- Atama頭 19:27, 12 May 2014 (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.

Note to reviewing admins

Larry's requested edits are indeed on the talk pages, as are the discussions where they have been soundly rejected. They fail multiple policies. He is now requesting that his edit warring block be lifted so ha can resume POV-pushing, but without edit warring as such. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it alarming, that a debate rival is trying to even prevent me making my case on legitimate wikipedia resolution avenues. If i am so wrong, what is the fear of a DRN? let them give an opinion if I 'failed multiple policies', and shed light on who is the one really POV pushing. it has more of a flavor of gaming the system than concern to wikipedia guidelines. There is a difference between trying to make an editor submissive to your POV by administrative tools and requiring the editor to present his case in a more calm tone.

This is the reason, as I said before i felt the original block felt unusual, especially in its timing and harshness. i got blocked right in the middle of a talk page debate on this subject. Though perhaps i got too heated up, to what i perceived as total disregard to mainstream scientific data in conflict with some of the article factsLarryTheShark (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I believe there is a clear line between defending a position and questioning data which is being presented as facts, and battle-ground behavior. In my original block, I crossed that line and was intellectually militant to what i perceived a gross academic misrepresentation in an article and lost my temper. I have made it clear in my earlier unblock requests, that i understand the mistake and do not plan making the same error of judgment, and would like to resolve the matter through legitimate wikipedia dispute resolution - DRN. I have made, in good faith, the mistake of opening a DRN case as a an IP editor, not assuming it is not allowed. My voluntary disclosure that my registered account is blocked in the DRN, I believe proves i was not trying to intentionally deceive anyone, and thus not intentionally trying to break my block. The last admin to refuse my request, has not taken this into account, and by coloring my future intention as "battleground behavior" declined the unblock. When i specifically declared my next move is DRN and not talk page horn locking. I Only ask for a fair chance. stating ones own position should not be a criteria for unblocking but how this position will be presented on wikipedia. This is my last unblock request. I hope after taking everything into account, the coming arbiter could see, that especially blocking editors who challenge a controversial article, by legitimate information and by emphasizing to take the road of legitimate discourse and dispute resolution - Is crossing the line into censorship. Perhaps, as i have been told earlier, that wikipedia is "merely ... a private website" (admin Bishonen reply to decline reply), and so my plea for an objective judgment is futile. I hope this question gets answered in the final conclusion here. I thank you

Decline reason:

Repeated block requests and a classic case of WP:IDHT are abusive. After I write this, I will revoke your talk page access, and you'll have to follow the instructions at WP:GAB if you wish to pursue this further. Several respected administrators have tried to explain to you what you've done wrong and even that your future intentions are not constructive. I have little to add other than to urge you to step back and reflect on their comments, and then come back in six months if you wish to resume editing at Wikipedia. Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2014 (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.

Note to other administrators. This editor has used the following IPs to evade his block:

109.65.8.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
79.176.162.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
109.65.33.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]