User talk:Dwrayosrfour

Flyleaf
Hey, I'm glad to see that you guys have begun to argue constructively. I've asked a question on the article talk page about the possibilities of including both genres, though probably with alternative rock as the primary genre. Please weigh in with your thoughts. GlassCobra 19:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

RE: Flyleaf
Actually, I didn't block you. Furthermore, your block was for a completely different article; Anberlin, not Flyleaf. If you notice, however, I left a stern note on Hoponpop's talk pages that his name calling is unacceptable and that he will be blocked if he does so again. In light of these, will you reconsider your request for me to step down? I feel that I am doing a decent job thus far. GlassCobra 07:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, my IP was blocked and you were the one who did it. Do you remember when you blocked Flyleaf833? That is my brother and you blocked him. That is the block I am referring to. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did block Flyleaf833, but that's not really the same as blocking you. I apologize for the IP interference, though. GlassCobra 07:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have had no experience with Hoponpop before attempting to mediate the argument about Flyleaf, and was unaware of any history he had. As I said, I left him a note saying that name-calling and personal attacks are unacceptable, and that he will be blocked if he does so again. GlassCobra 07:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We have pretty stringent guidelines to define what can and cannot be defined as a reliable source, located at Reliable sources. You asked me before to step down because I am partial, but I am a bit confused as to how I am supposed to both stay impartial and analyze these sources for you. I am not going to decide this issue, it's up to you all. I'm just the mediator, to keep things cool. GlassCobra 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you very much. I will probably unlock the article soon. GlassCobra 22:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

re: vandalism
Hi there, my page was 'vandalised' by a friend :) It's OK, you reverted fine! ~ Riana ⁂ 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Writing an article
Hello Dwrayos! I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. We actually have a good page for editors who want to write an article, at Your first article. If you need any more help, feel free to ask me! Good luck. :) GlassCobra 15:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hoponpop
I find it extremely insulting that you just lump me into the same camp as Hoponpop, despite the fact that I've told you numerous times that I have had no previous dealings with him. Futhermore, I am also trying very hard to stay impartial here; since you seem to be the most vociferous and outspoken of your position, I am trying to further understand your reasoning by asking you questions. I will deal with Hoponpop appropriately, but do not insult me again. GlassCobra 00:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have sided with no one. However, as you know, I have requested outside comment and have also solicited the opinions of other administrators that I trust since you seem to have so little faith in me. GlassCobra 00:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. GlassCobra 02:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Dwrayosrfour for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What the heck is this? It amazes me the lengths you will go to just to get what you want, this is ridiculous. I know without looking there is no evidence, because I have no sock account, let alone multiple ones. The only evidence points to the IP being a sock of you, Hoponpop69Dwrayosrfour (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

August Burn Red
Hello I just wanted to have a friendly discussion about on of the sources you have on this bands page. The source is cited to alternative rock, but the source (aol music) lists it as rock & alternative. Now if you click on the genre on the aol page it takes you to a list of other "rock & alternative" bands. Taking a look at this list it is clear that rock & alternative is a combined list of bands from the rock genre and the alternative rock genre, as bands on the list such as AC/DC, Hinder, Daughtry, etc. obviously don't fit into alternative rock. Therefore I do not believe that your source EXPLICITLY states what the bands genre is. I'm not trying to get into another big argument so I won't take your source down right now, I just want your opinion on this.Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attack against me
No need to attack my character by making statements like I'm on my 47th block. We're all children of the same awesome god and as my brother I just want to say I love you. 04:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Hoponpop69 (talk)

Flyleaf genre resolution
Please see Talk:Flyleaf. I expect everyone that was involved to refrain from any edit warring. Thanks. GlassCobra 07:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary genre
Because you insist on continuing to edit war over a completely insignificant change to the lead sentence, it seemed only logical to me to remove it altogether. I am not trying to own the article, nor am I attempting to override any sort of consensus, real or unreal. Disregarding your rambling and unwarranted lecture on obvious Wikipedia etiquette, I fail to see how leaving out the genre from the lead when it's being squabbled over is somehow denying that alternative rock is the primary genre. I will be reverting your change and leaving the genre out of the lead until you and Kaiba can learn that edit warring is not the answer, because this is something that you have consistently failed to grasp. GlassCobra 10:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not about authority. This is about common sense: if two people are arguing about an absolutely trivial clause of a sentence and are edit warring after being warned not to, then it should be removed until it has been resolved on the talk page. It's not as if the article is any less factual with that one part being removed until the debate is over. Again, I will ask you as politely as possible to stop edit warring needlessly, and discuss things on the talk page. GlassCobra 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How are my actions controversial? This is clearly not decided, otherwise there would be no need for edit warring. Kaiba is apparently under the opposite impression that you are, so I'm curious where you are drawing your supposed consensus from. I am trying to keep the article at a stable version that will not require any edit warring, ie. one that just leaves the disputed part out altogether. I would like to also note yet again that this has to be the most ridiculous and pointless edit warring I've ever witnessed. I am completely failing to understand why exactly having alternative rock or alternative metal in the lead sentence is so very important that it requires edit warring. I will ask you one last time to please stop edit warring and discuss the inclusion of either alternative rock or alternative metal on the talk page. GlassCobra 11:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The month-long argument was about including Christian rock in the list of genres, not even remotely about what genre to include in the lead sentence, so I'm having a lot of trouble following your leap of logic on calling that consensus. Whether or not Kaiba was involved in the previous debate is completely irrelevant. Considering you said yourself that there are sources for both alternative rock and alternative metal ("there are over 30 sources for alt rock and metal"), I am still confused as to why any edit warring is taking place at all. You are currently at 3 reversions; if you revert again, you will have broken 3RR. I do not have authority to override consensus, but I do have authority to block users that are edit warring for no reason. Check that, you have broken 3RR. I'll ask hmwith to review this and block you if necessary. GlassCobra 11:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternative metal was listed because that's what was there when I protected the article. This does not mean that I endorse it or think it's correct; I was not involved at that time. Now, let me be perfectly clear about this: I was attempting to revert to a neutral version until such time as you and Kaiba could decide which genre should be listed there. This is why your changes were considered edit warring. As I said above, we were debating about the inclusion of Christian rock, not what genre should be listed as the "main" genre; thus it is inappropriate to be calling this consensus to go forth from. When your block has expired, please return to the talk page and discuss this constructively with Kaiba. GlassCobra 12:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside comment: Dwrayosrfour, I understand that there is a great deal going on regarding the Flyleaf article, and it has become heated, but there is no need to personally attack other editors. One of the hardest things to do here is to "stay cool when the editing gets hot". That I fully understand. However, your actions are really escalating the situation. GlassCobra is simply trying to find a compromise for all involved parties. It should be noted that he is not "abusing" his position, nor is he "breaking any rules". His edits are being made per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My point is, even if other editors are, hypothetically, in the wrong, please remain civil when discussing the matter, and remember to always assume good faith in others, as we try to do the same for you. All of this will help result in the best possible article for the band and the best possible atmosphere on Wikipedia. Thanks,  нмŵוτн τ  11:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You just don't understand how frustrated I am right now. That was agreed upon, it took over a month but it was agreed upon. I guess I just don't have the patience for this, no matter what I do someone has something to say about it. It doesn't seem fair to me that Kaiba can come along and make a controversial change and I enforce consensus and all this happens, and he says I am "edit warring." Why isn't what he is doing edit warring? I am acting in good faith as well. I would think Glass Cobra would help to enforce the consensus, he knows that was agreed upon. There are in excess of 30 sources to back up alternative rock for that band. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been in this situation, too. There are things you can do to avoid violating WP:3RR.  The way to avoid an editwar is to make sure there are more people than just you reverting, so the lone voice trying to change the article is the one who gets blocked for edit-warring.  Here are some of the things you could have done:


 * If this article is one with lots of editors, just wait for the other people who have it watchlisted to restore the consensus version.
 * Post a request on a relevent WikiProject to get more people watching the article and reverting to the consensus version.
 * If it's just the two of you having the dispute, request a third opinion.
 * Ask for help at the incident board. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If that is true, glasscobra would have been blocked. He was the one seeking a change in consensus and insisting upon it. Answer me, why is it ok for him to edit war, he did not discuss his changes, mine were not changes. I was reverting to the form of the article agreed upon. He is the one making changes. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

What about GlassCobra? Is it ok for him to edit war because he is an admin? Why is he not blocked, again I was enforcing consensus. I thought it was ok to violate 3RR in a situation like this. If nothing else he needs blocked as well, since when do admins have the power to override consensus, he did not even discuss on talk before overriding consensus, simply just did it. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I for one agree. Glass Cobra completely ignored consensus that was in place. They were both clearly edit warring, the fact he is an admin is irrelevant to the fact. After all Glasscobra was the one implementing the change, he failed to discuss on talk as well. He does not have the authority to override consensus of multiple users. Dwrayosfour was clearly working to enfore the consenus that took a month to reach, he clearly invested a lot of time in the matter. This is not fair to him. At least block both participants. In my experience the one implementing the change in an edit war is the one blocked, especially if only one user is going to be blocked. Will someone please look at this, this admin is clearly abusing his powers? Landon1980 (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why this is so terribly hard to understand. I was not making any kind of change -- I was removing a change that was obviously contentious. Instead of siding with either alt metal or alt rock, I was removing the genre altogether until a decision was made on the talk page. Dwrayos is saying that most music articles do include a genre in the lead sentence, and he is correct; however, it needs to have gained proper consensus for. As he is working from a flawed idea of consensus, and edit warring to replace the changes that he made, I endorse the block made by hmwith. GlassCobra 13:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit warring for any reason is a bad idea. Discussion on the talk page is always more productive. Last thing we need is more users getting themselves blocked over two words in an article. Happens more often and in more places than it should. (As an aside, Dwrayosrfour violated 3RR, whereas GlassCobra did not - read the article history for confirmation)
 * As a curiosity - why is it so controversial - what difference does it make which way it reads? The only consensus I can find is the one regarding not having Christian rock in the link, and this appears to be a different dispute. I had a look at the article and honestly can't see the issue with either version. Orderinchaos 12:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Had a second look at it - it appears GlassCobra's involvement today was trying to resolve the conflict. There is no clear consensus on what should be there, although it does tend to point to not having "Christian rock" in the lead. The dispute today appears to be over whether "alternative rock" should be there or not. Orderinchaos 13:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well for one alternative rock was agreed on throughout the discussion to be the primary genre. What article do you know of that does not list the primary in the lead sentence of the article? Furthermore, several times it was said 'Christian Rock' should not be in the first paragraph because the large majority of the sources back up alternative rock and kept saying it was the primary, so no do not put CR in the opening sentence. There are several places like this in the discussion. It is clearly the consensus in place. Whether GC violated 3RR is irellevant, he was clearly edit warring. He is an admin, he knows better and should be held to a higher standard. Before he breached consensus he should have at least discusses it on the talk page. Landon1980 (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Landon, please read my comment above. Orderinchaos is correct in his judgment that the discussion over the past month was only concerned with the inclusion of Christian rock, and not at all with what should be the main genre. Therefore, there is no consensus for anything in the lead sentence. This is not to say that none can be gained, and that there should never be a genre in the lead sentence. It just needs to be discussed properly first. GlassCobra 13:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just feel it was the consensus in place. It may not have been explicitly stated but was implied several times. I haven't looked at the article since I made that revert, if you reverted that is fine and I will not edit war over this with you. I just feel that it should have been discussed before it was removed, that is all. I'm not trying to attack you by any means. I myself do not see the big deal, certainly not enough to edit war over. It just makes sense to me to put one of the alternative genres in the first sentence, seeing how there are more than two dozen good references for it. I have been wrong before, but that is my opinion. One more thing, whether that be the consensus or not it is clear dwrayosrfour feels that it is, he hardly deserved to be blocked for 3 days for making good faith edits. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If anything, alt metal, not alt rock, would have been the default implied consensus -- as Dwrayos noted, it was included in the version of the article when it was protected a month ago. I appreciate you trying not to attack me, and please understand that I have the best interests of the article in mind. I also completely agree that one of the alt genres should be placed in the lead sentence. However, it is not appropriate to edit war over which of the two should be included. GlassCobra 13:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)