Wikii6B

Welcome!

Hi, Wikii6B. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Whataboutism. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block. Thank you. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Wikii6B reported by User:The Mighty Glen (Result: ). Thank you. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abortion statistics in the United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Whataboutism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Whataboutism

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Whataboutism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The next block will probably be an indefinite one if you continue to revert multiple editors and don't establish consensus is in your favor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

NeilN

Hey, f*ckwad, Maricotes is obviously not my sockpuppet. You must know that by now. And now, you can add him to the list of editors who agree with me that the article is insanely biased. Now, my view is clearly the majority view, you fascist f*ck, and you can unblock Maricotes, you daft idiot.

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).

Wikii6B (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

A majority of editors commenting on the talk page agree with me that the article violates WP:UNDUE. It isn't just a little biased. It is insanely biased political propaganda. And clearly, Maricotes is not my sockpuppet. The gigantically biased NeilN simply assumed that he was because he agreed with me. That disqualifies NeilN as a minimally qualified moderator. It also should earn him a block for abusing his moderator privileges.

Decline reason:

Well, I would have indef'd you for your rant above anyway. Your talk page access has been revoked. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2018 (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.

To whom it may concern

@TonyBallioni, Swarm, Davey2010, and DanielRigal:. This is to note, for the record, per CU, that this user has been joe-jobbed and has not engaged in the alleged sockpuppetry. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

zzuuzz My decline/revoking TPA was largely based on the incoherent rant and attack on NeilN above: like I implied at the time, I’m not sure this is an editor we want on the project regardless of the socking bit. If Swarm wants to lift his block, I have no objections, but I’m also not sure it’s in the best interest of the project for reasons beyond the socking without a UTRS appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, unlike some other cases I'm not advocating an unblock. I realise that someone who responds with "Hey, f*ckwad .. you fascist f*ck" is not going to get far on Wikipedia. However, it's only fair to note the CU results. One day in the future maybe.. who knows. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

When someone reverts you and gets blocked, and then another editor appears the very next day to continue the edit war it's very easy to assume they're that person... If they're not a sock then I can only apologise for labelling them as one, I clearly put 2+2 together and got 5 so I apologise for that. –Davey2010^Talk 19:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Zzuuzz: Did CU actually turn up evidence of a "joe-job", or were you just using the phrase casually? Swarm ♠ 20:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: The sockpuppet was confirmed to be Architect 134 who is known for this behaviour. TBH joe-job is a slightly insufficient description: what we have is an LTA - repeatedly with different users - continuing edit wars which result in the original user being blocked because it's assumed that they're sockpuppets. On the other hand, as you'll see at User talk:Maricotes, the LTA consistently pleads that they're not the same user. Despite that, I'd still call it joe-jobbing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the info. For the record, I'm on the same page as TonyBallioni in that I don't think unblocking this user on principle will be in the best interest of the project, however there should of course be no prejudice against a normal WP:GAB-compliant unblock request. Swarm ♠ 20:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)