Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Danielle Rose Russell. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 00:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. One of
your recent contributions to
The CW has been reverted or removed, because it contains
speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is
verifiable, based on a
reliable source.
General Ization
Talk
00:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
“ | An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. | ” |
Your recent editing history at The CW shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization Talk 01:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Scotiabank Arena. Note that
Sportsfan 1234 reverted your edits, not me. I am just the messenger.
Johnny Au (
talk/
contributions)
00:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Tazetheog ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blocked for Sockpuppetry
Decline reason:
You appear to be appealing to the arbitration committee. You don't use the unblock template for that. WP:ARBCOM has contact details. Yamla ( talk) 22:00, 27 August 2022 (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.
Hello Arbitration Committee,
I was made aware recently that my wikipedia account (user: tazetheog) was banned for "sockpuppeting", and I am writing this email to ask for an unban of my account. I will write this request with bulleted and based on guidelines from the WP policy on unban requests.
State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration: The only thing I can think of that would get me blocked is possibly someone I share an internet connection with someone else whom could have edited on Wikipedia through the shared connection, but I never asked that person on my behalf, nor used their account to do edit pages. As stated in this wikipedia policy "Often, two or more accounts will edit similarly, doing things in the same exact manner, thereby giving the appearance of being operated by the same person. They write in the same grammatical style, source material the same way, or use the same wiki formatting.", and also "It is very likely this is occurring because one editor is simply copying the ways of another." This is what I believe to be the root of the issue.
Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct: The administrator did not directly reach out to me and asked if I was behind the other account. The concern the administrator shared was that my page had edited on the same page in the days or weeks prior to this purported "sock account". They did run a checkuser, which as I previously stated someone else whom could have edited on Wikipedia without my knowledge did so on their account through a shared internet connection.
As for the concerns, I can understand the blocking administrator's good faith concerns and actions as anyone or a group using or abusing multiple accounts can be detrimental to articles on Wikipedia and fair editing. If I am to be unblocked, I will do anything I can to prevent the perceived belief that my account may be used for abusive behavior, including giving you my word directly that I myself under the user "tazetheog" will follow Wikipedia community customs.
Lastly, I thank you for your diligent work as administrators and members of the Wikipedia community, because without administration, the Wikipedia we know today would be worse than it is.
Thank you, Tazetheog ( talk) 21:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Tazetheog ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blocked for Sockpuppetry Tazetheog ( talk) 22:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. Entirely unambiguous. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:40, 28 August 2022 (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.
Hello i was made aware recently that my wikipedia account (user: tazetheog) was banned for "sockpuppeting", and I am writing this to ask for an unban of my account. I have included in this request my reasons based on guidelines from the WP policy on unban requests.
State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration: The only thing I can think of that would get me blocked is possibly someone I share an internet connection with someone else whom could have edited on Wikipedia through the shared connection, but I never asked that person on my behalf, nor used their account to do edit pages. As stated in this wikipedia policy "Often, two or more accounts will edit similarly, doing things in the same exact manner, thereby giving the appearance of being operated by the same person. They write in the same grammatical style, source material the same way, or use the same wiki formatting.", and also "It is very likely this is occurring because one editor is simply copying the ways of another." This is what I believe to be the root of the issue.
Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct: The administrator "Mz7" did not directly reach out to me and asked if I was behind the other account. The concern the administrator shared was that my page had edited on the same page in the days or weeks prior to this purported "sock account". They did run a checkuser, which as I previously stated someone else whom could have edited on Wikipedia without my knowledge did so on their account through a shared internet connection.
As for the concerns, I can understand the blocking administrator's good faith concerns and actions as anyone or a group using or abusing multiple accounts can be detrimental to articles on Wikipedia and fair editing. If I am to be unblocked, I will do anything I can to prevent the perceived belief that my account may be used for abusive behavior, including giving you my word directly that I myself under the user "tazetheog" will follow Wikipedia community customs.
Lastly, I thank you for your diligent work as administrators and members of the Wikipedia community, because without administration, the Wikipedia we know today would be worse than it is.
Thank you,
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Danielle Rose Russell. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 00:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. One of
your recent contributions to
The CW has been reverted or removed, because it contains
speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is
verifiable, based on a
reliable source.
General Ization
Talk
00:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
“ | An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. | ” |
Your recent editing history at The CW shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization Talk 01:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Scotiabank Arena. Note that
Sportsfan 1234 reverted your edits, not me. I am just the messenger.
Johnny Au (
talk/
contributions)
00:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Tazetheog ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blocked for Sockpuppetry
Decline reason:
You appear to be appealing to the arbitration committee. You don't use the unblock template for that. WP:ARBCOM has contact details. Yamla ( talk) 22:00, 27 August 2022 (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.
Hello Arbitration Committee,
I was made aware recently that my wikipedia account (user: tazetheog) was banned for "sockpuppeting", and I am writing this email to ask for an unban of my account. I will write this request with bulleted and based on guidelines from the WP policy on unban requests.
State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration: The only thing I can think of that would get me blocked is possibly someone I share an internet connection with someone else whom could have edited on Wikipedia through the shared connection, but I never asked that person on my behalf, nor used their account to do edit pages. As stated in this wikipedia policy "Often, two or more accounts will edit similarly, doing things in the same exact manner, thereby giving the appearance of being operated by the same person. They write in the same grammatical style, source material the same way, or use the same wiki formatting.", and also "It is very likely this is occurring because one editor is simply copying the ways of another." This is what I believe to be the root of the issue.
Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct: The administrator did not directly reach out to me and asked if I was behind the other account. The concern the administrator shared was that my page had edited on the same page in the days or weeks prior to this purported "sock account". They did run a checkuser, which as I previously stated someone else whom could have edited on Wikipedia without my knowledge did so on their account through a shared internet connection.
As for the concerns, I can understand the blocking administrator's good faith concerns and actions as anyone or a group using or abusing multiple accounts can be detrimental to articles on Wikipedia and fair editing. If I am to be unblocked, I will do anything I can to prevent the perceived belief that my account may be used for abusive behavior, including giving you my word directly that I myself under the user "tazetheog" will follow Wikipedia community customs.
Lastly, I thank you for your diligent work as administrators and members of the Wikipedia community, because without administration, the Wikipedia we know today would be worse than it is.
Thank you, Tazetheog ( talk) 21:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Tazetheog ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blocked for Sockpuppetry Tazetheog ( talk) 22:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. Entirely unambiguous. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:40, 28 August 2022 (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.
Hello i was made aware recently that my wikipedia account (user: tazetheog) was banned for "sockpuppeting", and I am writing this to ask for an unban of my account. I have included in this request my reasons based on guidelines from the WP policy on unban requests.
State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration: The only thing I can think of that would get me blocked is possibly someone I share an internet connection with someone else whom could have edited on Wikipedia through the shared connection, but I never asked that person on my behalf, nor used their account to do edit pages. As stated in this wikipedia policy "Often, two or more accounts will edit similarly, doing things in the same exact manner, thereby giving the appearance of being operated by the same person. They write in the same grammatical style, source material the same way, or use the same wiki formatting.", and also "It is very likely this is occurring because one editor is simply copying the ways of another." This is what I believe to be the root of the issue.
Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct: The administrator "Mz7" did not directly reach out to me and asked if I was behind the other account. The concern the administrator shared was that my page had edited on the same page in the days or weeks prior to this purported "sock account". They did run a checkuser, which as I previously stated someone else whom could have edited on Wikipedia without my knowledge did so on their account through a shared internet connection.
As for the concerns, I can understand the blocking administrator's good faith concerns and actions as anyone or a group using or abusing multiple accounts can be detrimental to articles on Wikipedia and fair editing. If I am to be unblocked, I will do anything I can to prevent the perceived belief that my account may be used for abusive behavior, including giving you my word directly that I myself under the user "tazetheog" will follow Wikipedia community customs.
Lastly, I thank you for your diligent work as administrators and members of the Wikipedia community, because without administration, the Wikipedia we know today would be worse than it is.
Thank you,