User talk:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99

November 2022

You have been blocked for an indefinite period for edit warring, as you did at Fall of Singapore. 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 ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~3RR violation (4 reverts in the last 24 hours).~~ I've set a 2 week duration here as you have been blocked for edit warring previously, have been warned for editing warring in several articles recently and are continuing to edit war despite also participating in a talk page discussion of the edits in question which obviously breaches WP:BRD. I considered an indefinite duration block given that this is particularly unhelpful conduct, and you should expect one in the future if this behaviour continues after the block ends. Nick-D (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the block to indefinite duration after (belatedly) reading Talk:Fall of Singapore#Infobox edits. Edit warring while abusing the other editor, who is being perfectly reasonable, is not at all acceptable. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the above: this isn't a 3RR violation, but continued edit warring while engaging in talk page discussion and abusing the other participant is longstanding grounds for a block. Nick-D (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2022 (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).

BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will list the reasons for my unblock request below:

1. I have no intention to "edit war" again and understand the need not to.

2. I received a permanent block despite it being only my second infraction on Wikipedia.

3. The circumstances of my block being indefinite were unfair. The user who issued it initially gave me a two week block, and then effectively committed double jeopardy, going back and changing my block to an indefinite one despite no further action by myself. They also falsely claimed I "abused" other users, which I did not. Discussion may have gotten heated, and I concede to "edit warring", but I deliberately avoided ever resorting to employing abuse or insults. The other user was also extremely inflammatory in their edit summaries and talk page discussions, and faced no reprimand for it. I believe the issuing user may have been biased.

4. I'm sure whoever reviews this will see that I apparently made a "sockpuppet". I had never heard that term before, and didn't know I wasn't allowed to make another account when my previous one was blocked, hence my cessation of any such activities. I also wasn't particularly happy at the time with the arbitrary changing of my block from a temporary to permanent one, ex post facto. That was my mistake though, and I don't condone such actions. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block duration was changed after only a few minutes, it was a correction that more fully considered the situation, not a reevaluation hours or days later. Why did you not immediately admit to socking on your other account when you made an unblock request there? I appreciate your intention to not edit war, but please describe what steps you will take to avoid edit warring and/or how to resolve disputes without edit warring(hint). 331dot (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2023 (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.

@331dot I am tagging you because I do not know if I should reply to this, or if I need to submit a new unblock request. I will leave my reply below however:

I still feel they arbitrarily changed my block. One would think they would do their due diligence and issue the "correct" decision in the first place, when dealing with something as serious as the permanent revocation of a user's ability to edit for all time. Not to mention they erroneously cited a WP:3RR violation that never occurred, making them have to go back strikethrough their initial reason. I'm not sure how my punishment was increased after that. Especially considering it was only my second infraction, and was not an egregious one at that (not even a 3RR violation). Hopefully you can understand my frustration on this matter.

As for what I will do in future to avoid edit warring, I will engage in calm, good faith discourse with other users and attempt reach some compromise if an impasse is reached, and not "discuss through editing", but in the talk page.BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please make a new unblock request for someone else to review(you can simply reference this comment so you don't need to write it out a second time). 331dot (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2023 (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).

BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I recently submitted an unblock request, and was told to submit a new one and refer whoever reviews this to my last reply to the previous reviewer's. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

User has evaded their block by editing through an IP. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:47, 7 April 2023 (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.

I'm not going to review here, but I will add a couple of comments. First, you might want to rewrite your request. There is no double jeapardy, etc. We aren't a court of law. The purpose of administrative actions is not to met out justice, it is simply to prevent disruption. The last part of your request is fine, but spending so much time explaining how "unfair" the systems is here will not get you unblocked. Explaining what you want to do if you are unblocked, and pledging to stick to only one account, just might. Blame doesn't get you unblocked. Explaining that you understand your mistake, what you will do to prevent mistakes in the future, and explaining why you want to be here, often will. I personally don't have a problem granting a second chance if you can articulate that. Nick-D might should be pinged here as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing a reason to unblock from the above, as it continues the confrontational approach which led to the block in the first place (e.g. talk post posts like this and this while edit warring). Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good points. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  So because I question part of the reasoning for the severity of my block, I may not be unblocked? I have been very cordial and admitted to my own wrongdoing, while also saying what I would do to avoid future blocks. I have no interest in being blocked again. I may not be a "super editor", but I have devoted many hours of my life to trying to improve a lot of history articles, especially ones on the topic of Japan in WWII.
  
  I am also not trying to target you unfairly, but I am a bit bothered that fact the issuing user is even allowed to play a part in the block review process. It strikes me as extremely unethical. Your original reasoning is still there after all. It seems like all of Wikipedia's years of arbitration and bureaucracy seems to work in favor of giving me the most severe punishment possible, while conveniently ignoring any mitigating factors.
  
  I'm not some angry, raving troll. I'm just a guy who's life's passion is history and wants improve WWII articles on the world's largest information compendium occasionally as I read more books. I admit to, and apologize for edit warring because I just wanted to add a bullet list to an infobox. I won't do it again.
  
  My current plan is to only try and make any given edit twice (the second time only if I feel the revert was unwarranted, explaining why) before I generate a talk page discussion for the matter, and reach some sort of closure for the disagreement. Plus what I have already previously stated.BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The above comment (final paragraph) doesn't quite square with our edit warring policy. Specifically, you might want to be more precise than only if I feel the revert was unwarranted. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To address your points above:

1. I have no intention to "edit war" again and understand the need not to.

Excellent! This is one of the things I need to hear in order to believe that your block is no longer needed to protect the encyclopedia.

2. I received a permanent block despite it being only my second infraction on Wikipedia.

There is no requirement to issue a set number of warnings, or escalating blocks before an indefinite block is issued. See WP:BEFOREBLOCKING for more information.

3. The circumstances of my block being indefinite were unfair. The user who issued it initially gave me a two week block, and then effectively committed double jeopardy, going back and changing my block to an indefinite one despite no further action by myself. They also falsely claimed I "abused" other users, which I did not. Discussion may have gotten heated, and I concede to "edit warring", but I deliberately avoided ever resorting to employing abuse or insults. The other user was also extremely inflammatory in their edit summaries and talk page discussions, and faced no reprimand for it. I believe the issuing user may have been biased.

Blocks are issued in order to protect the project from disruption. There aren't legal concepts here like "Double jeopardy". We aren't discussing the other user here - we are here to decide if your block is still needed in order to protect the project.

4. I'm sure whoever reviews this will see that I apparently made a "sockpuppet". I had never heard that term before, and didn't know I wasn't allowed to make another account when my previous one was blocked, hence my cessation of any such activities. I also wasn't particularly happy at the time with the arbitrary changing of my block from a temporary to permanent one, ex post facto. That was my mistake though, and I don't condone such actions.

I'm glad to hear that you now know not to create new accounts while blocked. The block applies to the person, not the account. It is good to hear you do not intend to repeat this.

I'm very slightly leaning unblock per WP:AGF, and WP:ROPE. It appears that BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 understands where things went wrong, and has committed not to repeat those behaviors. I am willing to take them at thier word on that. I am, however, concerned about what will happen next time something happens to them that they consider to be unfair, biased, or arbitrary. SQL ^{Query Me!} 15:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't evaded your block much as far as I can detect, but you have evaded it, more than once. While this account is blocked, you are not permitted to edit at all - not as an IP address, and not through any other accounts. Please look at the standard offer - don't make any edits for six months, and then submit a new unblock request. If you want my advice, I'd suggest offering to voluntarily accept a WP:1RR editing restriction. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 15:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]