User talk:Simmerdon3448

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ella Anderson, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury • 02:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ella Anderson; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Amaury • 02:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amaury, you can’t just claim I was being disruptive without evidence. Isn’t it a bigger disruption that you chose to go with your personal preference over Wikipedia policy? You can’t just pick and choose which policies to enforce. I went to the talk page. You never showed up.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amaury, interesting that you told them to use the talk page and them never did that yourself... -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Arrowverse, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21: Are you sure you don’t have me confused for that DCFan2000 guy because you seem to have made similar reversions of his Smallville addition when he kept re-adding it--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest apologies; I meant to warn Cam456p and DCFan2000, not you. I've struck the warning. All the best! -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid claim. You can’t claim I’m in an edit war without conceding you are too--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back up your claim "Ten hours ago means new status quo was set"? What guideline or policy supports that? Or is it your own opinion? -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has provided storyboards that prove that the movie is a production of the series, so the edits will be restored. Please gain a consensus for your position before re-editing the artices. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were ready to jump on a “somewhat”? That’s irresponsible--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 05:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2015 in American television. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 15:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced material has to stay there while I grab sources, which you refuse to do. You can’t remove the content just because you don’t want to do the work--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of behavior that led to the ANI report. You have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to follow Wikipedia policy, namely WP:V and to some degree, WP:BURDEN, which explicitly states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 15:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The very definition of disruptive is being misused here, and does not apply to my behavior. How is it more disruptive to add sourced content to an article, than be edit conflicted because someone wiped it all away because someone else decided to remove content they weren’t supposed to and at the same time discourage editing of the article being worked on?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring is disruptive, no matter the cause. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith Okamoto: can you please explain this reversion? There was nothing wrong with the sourcing there. Not every employee at an animation studio is going to be Twitter verified, but one look at DVE’s profile shows them to be legit--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, social media "sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". The revert was valid, as the social media source was not about themselves. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what they’re an expert on. Would someone telling someone else about what’s going on at their job not be an expert on the goings-on? “My work will be released September 12, 2021.” is not about themselves?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where does "about themselves" include "[a]nd what they’re an expert on". Please don't put your own interpretations on policies if you don't understand them. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the section you were quoting. You stopped at “about themselves” without reading the rest of it--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because if it's not about themselves, it doesn't apply. It is automatically not a reliable source.

If you are unfamiliar with a policy, and an experienced editor takes the time out of their day to try and help you, best to take on board their suggestions. If you do, you won't find yourself in the blocked position that you find yourself in now. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except it’s about their work. You keep claiming that it’s not about themselves, but you refuse to acknowledge the rest of the passage. Your quote is out of context. I read the policy multiple times. I was blocked for being called disruptive and for adding things back that should not have been removed. Just because you think I’m wrong and disruptive doesn’t mean I am.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, you refuse to take any advice on board when things aren't made clear to you. Clear my time here isn't worth it; I'm expecting to see you in the same blocked position again later. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, stubbornly revert all my messages. Hypocritically say I’m not assuming good faith. I’m monitoring your contributions from now on. You won’t be editing with the same attitude you had before, and if you do, I won’t hesitate to report you. Have a good day. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe address your own behaviors before singling out others who have done nothing wrong but try to help, intimidating them into walking on eggshells and gaslight them into changing the definition of the word “disruptive”. Is that what a good user does?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody changed the definition of disruptive. The admin who blocked you has been on the site for 12 years, that user KNOWS what disruptive editing is. You legit were being disruptive, despite your claims. I know you are trying to help, but...not in the way we want you to. Wikipedia isn't a site where you can do whatever you want and treat people however you want. Considering how you've only been on for a month, I think you should read up on all of our content, content and conduct policies, our guidelines, and other stuff. And read through WP:DE carefully. If I come off as "intimidating", then you should get used to that,as that's how most of the editors on Wikipedia are. I'm actually trying to help you, I'm giving you advice by linking our policies and guidelines, but I also have to help and protect the project. You're not a editor I can trust right now. I don't think alot of people can trust you right now. I WANT to trust you, and I'm sure a lot of others want to as well, but you've been blocked for valid disruptive editing, you don't show a willingness to accept your wrongdoings and improve, and that means I have to watch you, to make sure you don't make the same mistake you did before. If you're here to help, please accept your wrongdoings and make a effort to change. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at least glad that you made a effort to finally respond to my messages, rather than ignoring and reverting them. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good user doesn't edit-war with multiple editors across multiple article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So then why did The Grand Delusion not get punished for doing so? Because he was removing information and templates where he wasn’t supposed to and I got blamed for it. Because you blindly trusted his word instead of seeing exactly what was going on. You might get angry at me for calling you out on your ego issues but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong to do so. I might be new but it doesn’t give you the right to emotionally abuse me and gaslight me about my justified anger at how I’ve been treated. There is not a single rule I’ve broken and you have no reason to tell me otherwise--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You kept re-instating unsourced content in violation of WP:V and WP:BURDEN. Sure, you added sources for some of the content, but apparently you can't figure out how to re-add only the sourced content. Also, in at least one of the edits, the source you added for The Haunted Hathaways makes zero mention of the show ending. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 16:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I have to recreate what you took away just because you gave up? There is no reason the unsourced content couldn’t stay. Wikipedia pages are community projects. Just because you don’t want to do the work anymore doesn’t mean you have to make it harder for everyone else. And you had the gall to undercut my valid incident report. That is mental and emotional abuse. You had no right to do what you did.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was an administrator (Bbb23) who "undercut" your report first. If you want to complain about your report getting removed, go to him. The unsourced content had to go because of Wikipedia policy stating that content must be verifiable/sourced. You have demonstrated (and continue to demonstrate) a blatant disregard for Wikipedia policy, and it is very clear that your behavior indicates there is no intention of ever changing. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 17:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep claiming I disregard Wikipedia policy, but have no proof. You claim that it’s my behavior that must change without ever considering that maybe you’re being too harsh on me for no reason. I’m willing to work with you, but you’ve never shown interest in working with me--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get it through your skull. You are the one at fault here, you have ignored and broken rules and you have shown no intention of changing, even after I attempted to help you do so. Stop blaming other people for stuff you did. I don’t want one of your trademark excuses, admit that you’re at fault. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you’ve violated WP:SOCIALMEDIA yet again, as seen on 2019 on American television. This is some really stubborn behavior I’m seeing. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can claim things all you want, but that doesn’t make them true. “Get it through your thick skull”? Is this how experienced editors are supposed to treat new users? The fact that you’re treating me this way only reinforces what I’ve stated. This isn’t about any wrongdoing, but ego.

You don't get to play the "new player" card when all you've done here is edit-war and insult others. Is that how any editor is supposed to treat any other editor? (Hint: the answer is in my edit summary.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simmerdon3448, stop reverting at 2019 in American television]]. You're not getting into another edit war, this is ridiculous, multiple editors have stop you and stop and follow the rules, but you simply refuse to follow them. If you're not gonna follow the rules, you can't be on this site. Also, don't play the "I'm new" card, we've given you advice on how to improve and I've linked you to our P&Gs. But you simply just refuse to listen. You're wasting everyone's time right now, you frequent edit warring prevents and scares people away from making improvements to the article (and sometimes even the site itself), and ruins the flow of the project. This isn't Simmerdonpedia, this is Wikipedia, and you will follow the rules if you want to stay here. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I DID follow the rules. You haven’t properly justified your reversions. You refuse to address my arguments. Instead, you threaten me because you have no other power over me. You wanna talk “scaring editors away”? What do you think removing THOUSANDS OF BYTES OF SOURCED CONTENT and then removing the template that encourages the grabbing of sources and instead acting like the template was never there? What about threatening and insulting users and talking down to them and completely ignoring when they call you out on such behaviors? You’re letting your ego get in the way of civility and that’s unbecoming of any Wikipedia user, and you and Alex are playing major projection games trying to claim that I’ve been the one doing the insulting. It’s as if facts don’t matter to you. Please read WP:Civility--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simmerdon, if you don't want someone to post on your talk page any more, you can tell them so. You don't have to get so stressed out over this stuff. Also, please see WP:DR as an alternative to edit warring. I will get annoyed if I have to start counting the reverts people make at 2019 in American television, so please don't make me do that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be appropriate to count the amount of reversions performed on me that insisted on a policy without elaboration or that actually addressed my explanations. There’s still no explanation for the latest round and how it doesn’t fall under “about self”--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is subject to 3RR, so it's not just you. However, if multiple people revert you, that usually means there's a consensus against your edit. Repeatedly reverting people won't turn that around – it only gets you blocked. So, what you need to do is convince people that you're right on the article's talk page. Then you'll have consensus on your side, and the edit will stay. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Simmerdon3448 reported by User:The Grand Delusion (Result: ). Thank you. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Simmerdon3448. You've been warned per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked the next time you revert at 2019 in American television unless you have obtained a prior consensus on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2019 in American television. Citation added for The Lion Guard makes zero mention of the show ending, and is a primary source, which are normally discouraged per WP:PRIMARY. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 20:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read the edit again. I was only trying to help by adding a source. I didn’t add unsourced material. Also, primary sources are totally allowed, otherwise there wouldn’t be citation templates for episodes themselves.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that the source you added does not support the content. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 21:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that’s not the same thing as adding unsourced content. It shows how trigger-happy you are about me, that you give me a warning for something that doesn’t apply.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does, TGD is correct. If you add content, and a source where the content is not supported by it, then that is unsourced content, as you have no source to back up your content. Sorry to pop your bubble. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I didn’t add the content. I only added the source. I’m not living in a goddamn bubble. Don’t trudge in here to tell me I did something that I did not do when clearly you do not know what you’re talking about--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter who added it. You modified content by adding a source that did not support the content. That's unsourced content. Perhaps focus less on raising your hackles and arguing, and focus instead on advice given to you by more experienced editors. Last time you didn't do that, you were blocked. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not supposed to take uncivil editors lying to me like I’m a doormat. I have every right to call you out on your behavior. Experience doesn’t mean anything more than a crutch--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add unsourced content and editors won't have to warn you. It's really as simple as that. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser didn’t do anything if you’re going to claim I made edits I didn’t make without proof. Keep up now. Stop lying to my face and maybe try listening instead of running your mouth like you know everything. Once again you’re failing to meet the burden of proof. I never logged out. The logs show that. If you’re going to take the word of someone with no proof, walk away now. Your only choice is to find a different way to prove it because right now I’m being held without cause.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser says you did; I'm going to take their word over it. Burden of proof doesn't apply here. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of taking things out of context: If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it.

A minor child of a celebrity is less than "borderline notable". I don't care about you apologizing for mischaracterizing my correct interpretation of the guidelines, but please revert yourself and remove the birth months for the children of Aaron Ashmore and Shawn Ashmore. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some things you got wrong: Anime News Network & Dallas Morning News (both sites that are substantially sourced in this category) are 100% biased themselves. Anime News Network did not report on any of the allegations and misconduct against Mr. Chris Sabat (which was partially exposed by Mr. Nick Rekieta). Dallas News Network stated that Judge John Chupp ordered Mr. Vic Mignogna to a hearing on September 6, 2019, this is false, Mr Mignogna was not obligated to make an appearance, nor was Mr. Ron Toye (whom did not make an appearance either). Mr. Rekieta stated (and is in legal document) that Mr. Mignogna (along with Mr. Ty Beard) filed for an appeal to Judge Chupp's order of dismissal. Please see WP:NPOV and carefully think over your statements. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no allegations against Chris Sabat, so congrats on showing your biases--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations = Innocent until proven guilty; not the other way around. I advise you check out this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegation UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simmerdon3448, are you edit-warring again? Further reverts may result in a revisit to AN3. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not edit warring, I’m removing poorly sourced information--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can do both at the same time. Removing unsourced information is not under WP:3RRNO. An initial edit and two reverts can be considered edit-warring, the content of which is irrelevant. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But when you do it or when anyone does so to me, it doesn’t count? How fishy--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's more of what "whataboutism". In the case where we were involved, multiple editors were reverting you. That means clear opposition to your edits alone. In this case, it's a one on one, so it's both of you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a whataboutism, it’s pointing out clouded judgement.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...edit warring and inserting information not based on reliable, secondary sourcing. I will be forced to block you if you continue. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that’s not what’s going on here. You have to prove it’s not reliable or secondary sourcing.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t block anyone without cause. You can’t block someone to win an argument. Just because you have blocking powers doesn’t make you right. Just because you have blocking powers doesn’t mean you’re allowed to edit war. I didn’t violate any rule--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were guilty of edit warring (not the first time) and you kept on reinserting material based on primary sources (at best that tweet was a primary source). If you are not willing to play by the rules, you might end up getting blocked again, and for longer; please re-read WP:V and WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. You have yet to prove your claims. I was not edit warring. It’s not unreliable just because you say so. By law, my source was secondary. You sir, were attempting to edit war and I saw right through that. Please reread WP:RS before claiming that 1) I never read it and 2) I wasn’t adhering to it. If you were really all about the rules, you’d have taken it to the talk page BEFORE removing the information. Why is your stubbornness okay, but mine isn’t? Why is mine a blockable “offense” but you get to trample all over the rules to get your way?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, anything can be WP:CHALLENGED, it's up to you and it's your WP:BURDEN to prove that it is reliable. By your law? What law? Based on what? -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is always on the accuser. In order to prove I violated any rules (adding reliably sourced information is not against the rules), you have to meet the conditions to call what I added “unreliable” and no such burden was met.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nope. Read the policy: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This is a policy that you cannot bend to your will. It's quite clear. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simmerdon, your talk page proves that you have danced this dance before, and you have yet to convince anyone of your point of view. The basics of "edit warring" seem to escape you, and you obviously do not understand how sourcing is to be done. You are free, of course, to place an unblock request to see if another admin agrees with you. You don't have to ping me--in fact, please don't, since I have no interest in this timesink. But in the meantime, I'll ping User:NinjaRobotPirate to see if they have any thoughts; maybe they'll just shake their head and walk away. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can post an anecdote. Once, an editor posted that there was going to be a sequel to a film didn't make much money. To back up this claim, the editor cited a post on Twitter by the director. I figured, "OK, that sounds a bit fishy, but the director said it was true." So, later, after this editor started posting increasingly suspicious claims, I looked into the matter. It turns out that the director was just joking around. The director said there was never going to be a sequel, and he was becoming increasingly distressed that this hoax was being spread by Wikipedia. I cleaned up Wikipedia article, and the editor who originally added it was later indefinitely blocked for continuing to spread this hoax. From that day, I no longer trusted anything cited to Twitter. If it's true, it'll eventually make its way to Variety or Entertainment Weekly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything does. Maybe they were only allowed to spread the literature WarnerMedia wanted to send about the specific announcement. Kids show series finales aren’t always picked up by the reputables. That doesn’t mean they don’t happen.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simmerdon3448, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be accused of sockpuppetry? I can attest that once I sent my last message yesterday, I closed my Wikipedia tabs and walked away. I was willing to wait the 24 hours out after calming down. I’m being framed.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. The IP was connected to your account. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn’t be. The entire investigation happened without my knowledge, without any proven wrongdoing my suspension was TRIPLED pretty much on a whim. How is that fair to me, when I did nothing wrong?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it happened without your knowledge. There was a notice posted here, irrelevant if it was too late before you saw it. Proof was given matching the IP to your account, the checkuser checked the relation, confirmed it and took action. Don't you think checkusers and admins see these arguments all the time? "It wasn't me!"? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is your entire philosophy “If someone accuses them, the accuser must be right?” How the hell was it my IP address IF THE IP WAS BLOCKED? I know what i was doing last night. I was on Twitter watching Smallville last night, my Wikipedia windows were closed. Just because you claim something doesn’t make it true. I closed all my Wikipedia windows last night to prevent myself from doing anything that would extend or endanger my account, but it happens anyway, because someone claims without evidence that the IPs match?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral evidence was presented, and they made the connection. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The(/your) IP was blocked at the same time as your extension because you edited through it while you were blocked. Clearly the(/your) IP wasn't blocked when they made the edits. Try to keep up. The CheckUser connected the IP to your account. See WP:CHECK for what exactly it is they do. And I was out meeting the King of Denmark. Sounds like we both had a great night. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser didn’t do anything if you’re going to claim I made edits I didn’t make without proof. Keep up now--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser says you did; I'm going to take their word over it. Don't evade your ban by editing while logged out, and we won't have this issue. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you’re lying straight to my face, and telling me you’re allowed to do that because “People have lied about Sockpuppeting before, so I’m allowed to frame you for it with flimsy evidence and everyone else will go along with it because I’ve already gotten you falsely locked up for edit warring several times, so who’s gonna believe you?” That’s your entire case--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, shifting the blame onto other users. I feel like we've given you far too many chances, and it's apparent that you have no intention of ever changing. If this behavior continues, your next block could be indefinite. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) CheckUser says you did; I'm going to take their word for it over yours. Sorry. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You’re blaming me for an edit I did not make, falsely accusing me of breaking the rules while only having hearsay as evidence. Am I supposed to blame myself when the evidence shows I did nothing wrong in the first place? You are victim-blaming and expecting the victim to blame themselves just because you’re afraid to admit you’re wrong, and threatening to punish me for it. What am I supposed to learn from this when even walking away got me more punishment because of hearsay?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the evidence proves it was you. Again, CheckUsers have far more experience, and have actually checked your edits and IP logs. They made the connection. They blocked you. You can keep repeating the same thing over and over; doesn't change a thing. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep saying the same things, but there is no actual proof that it was their findings. There is no proof there was findings. There is no evidence of an actual investigation. Maybe if you’d stop telling people to accept lies and gaslight them, then maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation. You can keep claiming that I made those edits, but until you can admit to being flawed, that the CheckUser system is flawed, and admit you are no better than me as a Wikipedia user, then you have no argument. Stop blaming everyone else for your problems--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think there is. CheckUser thinks there is. They're the more experienced editors. "CheckUser" is flawed. God, I wonder how many thousands of times they've heard that from deflecting editors. Best of luck. (Also, I had nothing to do with the investigation, I'm not commenting on it, but... go off, I guess? Sure?) -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, two things. First, there was no comment by a CheckUser, so please stop saying claiming there was. You guys don't know what you're talking about – no CheckUser would ever confirm an IP address to an account because this ground for instant dismissal as a CheckUser. Second, please find something better to do than argue on Simmerdon3448's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Spider-Man: Far From Home 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Spanneraol (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spanner, I’m not the bad guy here--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are just as guilty of edit warring as he is. Stop reverting and take to the talk page or ask for help. Your actions are not helping things. Spanneraol (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The rules as described in Disruptive editing say to keep reverting, so I did. I didn’t have to take it to the talk page because the IP guy hops IPs to make the same edits. He’s already been reported for edit warring and I’ve contributed to the report--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seek help from an admin... just constantly reverting does no good.. it exacerbates the issue. Spanneraol (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? @Alex 21: can I have some help here?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute between the two of you. You both have histories of edit warring based on the messages on both of your pages.. you both need to stop and discuss the issue. Spanneraol (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the rules, I was not edit warring. WP:Disruptive editing explicitly states to keep reverting--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere on that page does it say to keep reverting. It says discuss on talk page and stop and request an admin. Spanneraol (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re now lying to me. I do not understand why you’d lie to me when I read the page several times.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the part that says "(but be careful you don't do excessive reverts yourself!)." Spanneraol (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You are involved in a content dispute. You are not reverting clear vandalism, so the 3RR exemption does not apply to you. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a content dispute. Removing sourced information is against the rules--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a content dispute as there has been extensive discussion on the talk page about that content.Spanneraol (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}.  —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no, the line is there so people wouldn’t change the credit to Michelle Jones. What’s so harmful about it that you’re grilling me instead of the ban evader you won’t give the same amount of attention to. I wasn’t edit warring. I followed the rules to a T. There is no reason for this block--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there was ban evasion, where did you report it to WP:ANI for enforcement by administrators? I see only that you pursued this matter as an edit war that you were a part of, not as ban evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was too busy being harassed by people who were yelling at me for following proper guidelines. I was not edit warring. By the time I could do anything you blocked me for a week for arbitrary reasons--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. You had plenty of time to follow proper guidelines; you did not have to revert 21 times (per the count at the AN3 report). You were not blocked for arbitrary reasons; you were blocked for violating 3RR, which is a brightline rule, which you have been warned about repeatedly, and which you have been blocked for violating in the past. —C.Fred (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a troll, vandal and a serial ban evader (the latter also noted on the notice board by Favre1fan93 is not against the rules. You can keep claiming I’ve ever violated 3RR, but the evidence will show that each and every revert was justified--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were not reverting clear vandalism. I"m asking Bbb23 if there is ban evasion involved here. If there is ban evasion, and if you agree that you should have stopped reverting and reported the matter to WP:ANI to let administrators block the IP(s), then I'll be willing to unblock. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should’ve stopped, but WP:STATUSQUO would’ve also kicked in, necessitating the reverts as well, right? Just because you consider the IP guy not to be a vandal doesn’t mean it didn’t qualify. Also, it wasn’t a one-on-one thing. Several other editors had reverted the IP guy,and as the Disruptive editing policy says,

Assuming that it's one editor against many at this point, continue reverting the tendentious editor

— Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

It says nothing about sanctioning the person trying to stop the countering user. I left two messages on the IP guy’s talk page that they completely ignored. I asked Alex 21 for help and he showed me he just posted to the noticeboard. So I was contributing to that, but IP guy kept going.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it was not one against many. It was one against one. And again, as noted elsewhere in the page on disruptive editing, you should've sought administrative assistance sooner.

The bottom line is this. You were involved in an edit war, it wasn't your first, and you were blocked to prevent the continuation of the edit war. You'll have to show better understanding of the 3RR's rules and willingness to abide by them to get your block shortened. —C.Fred (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you disagree with what I say, only speak in direct contradiction of me, and remove all context of the situation to justify the block, does not mean I should’ve been blocked. Did you not see the noticeboard? Did you not see Trailblazer101’s reverts? How can you say it was one-on-one?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've double checked sources now and all I've found is Zendaya and Feige confirming her first name as Michelle during Homecoming interviews. It should be properly discussed to include that on the page, but, from what I can tell, Marvel Studios have not confirmed her last name as "Jones", yet trade reports say it as such. We really should discuss this on the Far From Home talk page to sort this out, but I'm now inclined to say it is safe to include her first name "Michelle", but not her last name "Jones". Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So we really gonna wait a whole week to have it?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve apparently been blocked for a week for fighting vandalism and abiding by the WP:Disruptive editing rules, meaning I can’t comment on the Noticeboard for the IP guy that he not only evaded his ban, but removed sourced content. How best can I appeal this ban so I can get right back?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmerdon3448 (talk • contribs)

Sources can be wrong. 1. She's not the Laurel of Earth-1 yet, whether she will be or not. 2. That page does not specify every single character's world of origin. 3. Interesting timing on your edit. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source said that it was Laurel of Earth-1. Therefore you’re being the Crystal Ball--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the only one who cares, so I'm concerned. The article needs major changes I'm not prepared to attempt.

I also reverted an addition to the infobox until everything is consistent, either a new infobox or a revised one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: can you describe what kind of overhaul you’re looking for?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it. I can't. I just know something needs to happen.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is they’ve been more hush about this second one, so there’s not enough information to really help work the overhaul--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Simmerdon3448, you are at four reverts at Sabrina Carpenter, if you don't revert immediately you will be blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how removing different information qualifies me for a block. The contested info is no longer on the page. I’m still at three reverts.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct in that the content you removed was unrelated to the current edit war, but it was a pointy edit and your edit summary made it clear it was done in retaliation for the current dispute you find yourself in. You are edit warring across multiple articles and I would not be surprised if you find yourself blocked, again, for persistent edit warring. I would suggest you hold yourself to a strict WP:0RR or WP:1RR restriction in the future.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliation? Why frame it like that? Why treat me with such hostility? Just because it happened to be information on the same page? Why is it okay for them to revert me but I can’t revert them? Because they’re multiple people? If I tried to restore a sentence describing how raisins are grapes, and multiple people reverted me, does that make them right?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Until you are able to get a better grasp on what an edit war is, and when a revert is or is not acceptable, you should stick to WP:1RR or WP:0RR as I advised above. When you ask "Why is it okay for them to revert me but I can’t revert them? Because they’re multiple people?", the answer is yes. Decisions on the inclusion or removal of article content is based on consensus. If you are being reverted by multiple editors, you do not have consensus for the edits you want to make. Framing content disputes in terms of "right and wrong" as you're doing is wrongheaded and demonstrates that you don't understand our policies.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except because no discussion was started, there was no consensus. I have every right to frame it as right versus wrong because your argument is “You’re wrong because policy says so.” There were no given reason for several reverts, but I explained myself perfectly. You don’t get to tell me what kind of grasp I have on policy when you misrepresent the issue at hand. There is no consensus for the edit because only one person explained themselves, and their reasoning was factually wrong. The fact that you ran in here with false accusations and threatened to block me for staying within guidelines is maybe because admins can’t handle being wrong or admit fault in themselves or policy--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those who fail to learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Your reply includes many inaccuracies and, again, demonstrates your ignorance of our policies regarding consensus and edit warring. However, you're clearly not willing to educate yourself or take on board any of the information and advice imparted to you by myriad individuals on this page, so it's really not worth my time in trying to help you avoid another block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those who fail to show compassion and instead blindly subscribe to ignorance are doomed to repeat it. The only flaws in my reasoning is that everyone who encounters it would like to remind me that they failed to listen over and over again and pounded the policy wall until their fists bled while a chain of admins plugged each other’s ears--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at Sabrina Carpenter.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2019 (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).

Simmerdon3448 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was erroneously told that I would be blocked for the Sabrina Carpenter edit war because I had four reverts at the page, until I pointed out that I had only done three. She took the correction. Therefore this block is in error. I have read the policy over and over again and find that an indefinite block is too extreme for a situation like this.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra 03:17, 13 December 2019 (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.

First of all, this shifts the blame of the wrongful block on the person blocked, even when they follow policy. It’s incredibly condescending. “ Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.“ Isn’t that what you’re doing right now? Calling attention to my faults without addressing the possibility that your governing body jumped the gun? Made a mistake? What am I supposed to learn when I’m constantly being blocked arbitrarily for rules I haven’t even broken? If all I have to do is affirm my understanding of the policy. You said so yourself. I promise to have more restraint, but the block itself has yet to be justified. --Simmerdon3448 (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) When you say I’m constantly being blocked arbitrarily for rules I haven’t even broken, you reverted more than three times. The rule that corresponds to that is WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. That's the rule you broke. Your edits are not listed under WP:3RRNO. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

”Must not exceed 3 reverts” Show me where I exceeded 3 reverts in a 24-hour period on a single page in the last 24 hours. If I did not exceed three, then someone jumped the gun and the block is bogus. I’m not looking to be an exception, I’m looking to be unblocked. I’m looking for a reasonable justification for the permanent ban placed on me. And yes, I’m calling it what it is because I don’t trust anyone with governing powers to go against party lines and lift the suspension at any point. I want to be sure I’m not wasting my time.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simmerdon3448, 1, 2, 3, 4 (this last one is counted, as it removed content another editor had added, and was directly related to the first three reverts in reasoning). Plus your initial edit. Also see the below comment. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, does not count as a revert. Revert means “return to a previous state”. You have to find something else--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous state was when the content was not included. It's a revert. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I must add that although I blocked Simmerdon for edit-warring, the reasons for the block go well beyond that to include a history of disruptive editing, a battleground mentality that persisted up to the block, a lack of understanding of policy, a lack of insight into their own behavior, and a failure to collaborate with other editors but instead blame everyone else. Even now post-block Simmerdon continues to disclaim any responsibility for their own actions. This "I have done nothing wrong" attitude shows that they cannot be an asset to this project.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it’s a battleground mentality. What part of fighting for my freedom don’t you understand? Fighting back against injustice? You are trying to control the narrative when I’m perfectly allowed to be blunt about how I’ve been treated. You get to knock down the perceived lesser user and have him take responsibility for things that he shouldn’t have to do. I have done everything I was supposed to to qualify to be unblocked but I never was because this isn’t about taking responsibility. You are forcing me to admit guilt. I ask you to work with me, but you refuse to take responsibility. Why should I admit wrongdoing when you never have. You’ve never given an inch. I am an important member of this project, just like you, with a lot of work to do, and I have never ever deserved a permanent ban. If you don’t think I’m important, it says a lot about how you use your power. If you’re going to try to use “ Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.” just remember that it works both ways, nullifying any reason for me to be blocked--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you admit to WP:BATTLEGROUND? Have you read that? We asked you to work with us, but you refuse to take responsibility. Why should anyone else admit wrongdoing when you never have? You've never given an inch. We are all important members of this project, just like you, with a lot of work to do. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, can we revoke Simmerdon's talk page access? He is clearly showing no intention of ever changing, and is demonstrating failure or refusal to understand Wikipedia policy. Frankly, Simmerdon is just wasting everyone's time here. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 07:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to prove unwillingness to learn Wikipedia policy. Why are you so hostile against me? I just want to edit again and you’re trying to make it impossible for me to ever do that again for reasons I can’t fathom. Please let me keep my talk page access. I have worked hard to please you. I don’t want to be angry anymore, I just want to calmly get my editing privileges back, with all possible resources to do so--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to prove unwillingness to learn Wikipedia policy. Pot. Kettle. Black. -- /Alex/₂₁ 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If only he could learn to say "I was wrong, I'm sorry, it won't happen again." rather then fight an argument they're clearly in the wrong about. Take that other issue he was blocked about after reverting a disruptive IP 21 times. He still couldn't acknowledge that he did something wrong. Esuka (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn’t about who’s right and who’s wrong. You guys aren’t willing to de-escalate. You’re more interested in being right than facing the possibility you could be wrong. That 21 reversion incident I quoted policy for and yet you completely ignore it just to put labels and force guilt on the innocent.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re more interested in being right than facing the possibility you could be wrong. My reply to that: Pot. Kettle. Black. (again). Also, policy is not listed under WP:3RR (again). -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive editing policy said to keep reverting the vandal of the FFH page, so maybe stop citing the wrong policy. And no, I’m not a hypocrite. There’s also the fact that I did not violate 3RR in this most recent instance, because the fourth edit was not a reversion. Blocking me wasn’t about holding me accountable for anything, it was for getting rid of someone you consider a nuisance. There was no reason to make it an indefinite block considering you’re floundering for reasons to uphold it that have anything to do with policy--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why, in all likelihood you will remain blocked. You're unable to take responsibility for your actions and acknowledge that you were in the wrong. For this reason alone unblocking you won't achieve anything as you'll be back in the same situation in short order. These sort of blocks are made when editors have repeatedly failed to reflect on their actions to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. Esuka (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, you are going in circles. The repetition is unhelpful. I suggest you ignore future posts by Simmerdon.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: That is why I suggested revoking Simmerdon's talk page access. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 18:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, after reading editor's ridiculous protests about his ban towards the start of thread, this editor shouldn't have this form of communication right now. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 15:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn’t I be allowed to defend myself? You claiming I failed to reflect when everything I said says otherwise says a lot about your biases. That instead of giving me my editing privileges back, you’d rather take more away without explaining why. Why do you want to continually hurt me? I will prove to be a better editor. I promise to show more restraint, but you have to give me that chance first, but right now, you haven’t, because I didn’t violate 3RR. If I did, and my protests are so “ridiculous” (good job on the impartiality by the way), explain what it means to revert, and then count how many reversions I made to the Sabrina Carpenter page. --Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just take the WP:Standard Offer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i can’t. I was supposed to be unblocked days ago, and there are so many unanswered questions as to why I’m not unblocked, the circumstances as to why I was blocked in the first place have several holes. You’re telling me to just take the L instead of addressing them. Reflecting on the situation in a way you disagree with does not mean I did not reflect. Please stop violating Wikipedia policy and stop the bias--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that you were supposed to be unblocked days ago? Actually ask your questions, and they'll be answered. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaslighting is not an argument, sir. That’s your entire argument so far. Leave my talk page. Do not comment again--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pot. Kettle. Black. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 02:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Simmerdon3448, you are entitled to remove without comment any editor's posts to your Talk page. In addition, any request by you to an editor to stop posting here must be honored by the other editor. This bickering is not helping anyone, and at some point I may intervene and start reverting other editors' comments, but it would be preferable coming from you.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this—and particularly its edit summary—are hurting your cause, not helping it. If you want to make a successful appeal against your block, you need to address your conduct, not spend your time worried about the conduct of others. —C.Fred (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it hurting my cause? Bbb said I had the right to remove comments from my talk page. You reverted it back on seemingly to frame it as a demerit against me and claim it “hurts my cause”. Some might interpret his comment as saying I can only revert it if I didn’t comment, but I couldn’t actually revert the comment because of the content that had already been added. He literally said “ at some point I may intervene and start reverting other editors' comments, but it would be preferable coming from you.” in talking to me and yet somehow I’m still the bad guy? How is that fair? I have repeatedly addressed my conduct, but you seem to be ignoring when I do, or else you wouldn’t have said what you said. It’s comments like yours that seem to hurt my case more, because your comments make it clear how futile an appeal effort would be, because you don’t care how I’m treated, you’re willing to toss me aside based on personal preferences, not based on anything I have stated. The fact that you blatantly break the rules in order to get your incorrect point across shows this. This is why the “worry about your conduct, not those of others” you’re pushing on me doesn’t work, because it shows maybe my conduct wasn’t entirely the problem in the first place--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLANKING, it's generally OK to remove comments you don't like from your own talk page. For what it's worth, I saw you edit several articles on my watchlist, and I thought that your edits were useful. If you made a good unblock request, I think you could be unblocked. It might be an uphill battle, but all you really need to do is promise to stop edit warring. For example, maybe if you agreed to a voluntary one revert restriction, that might help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, the aspersions you cast at another editor are what's hurting your cause. The edit summary says: "Removing irrelevant comment that uses personal attacks without elaboration. User has history of making accusations they cannot back up but pretend to". You didn't just remove the comment. Instead, you made a comment—and arguably, a pretty serious charge—about another user. That's not a good idea at the best of times. It's a bad idea when you're blocked and you've been told that the discussion at hand needs to focus on your behaviour and not that of others. —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They aren’t accusations. The history is right here on this page. To claim they’re “charges” erases my experiences with the user in a very manipulative way. There is nothing wrong with me commenting on other users’ behavior. If you can do it, so can I. If you won’t unblock me, C. Fred and The Grand Delusion, I can no longer allow you to comment on my talk page. At this point, all you’re doing is overstepping on the rules in order to discourage an unfairly blocked user from wanting to appeal, and that is unacceptable. You don’t want concessions, you just want me to go away just because you don’t like me or my arguments for unblocking me.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2019 (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).

Simmerdon3448 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was erroneously told that I would be blocked for the Sabrina Carpenter edit war because I had four reverts at the page, until I pointed out that I had only done three. She took the correction. In my previous appeal, I pointed it out again, and not a single user could point out where the fourth reversion was, based on the very definition of revert. I also made a very sincere apology, promising never to edit war again. Instead of being unblocked, I was met with more threats, and was told to feel guilty. That I deserved my talk page rights being revoked just because I wasn’t going to sit there and take the hostility. All I want is another chance to prove myself. To be blocked indefinitely for what wasn’t even a violation feels incredibly wrong. I promise to control myself better, but I need to be given that chance

Decline reason:

You don't have to violate WP:3RR to be considered to have engaged in edit warring. While 3RR is a bright line to cross to be blocked, you can be determined to be edit warring with fewer reverts(this is spelled out in the edit warring policy). I count three prior blocks that have failed to motivate you to change your behavior. Nothing I see here convinces me that this block has done so, and as such I am declining your request. My personal opinion is that you will need to agree to a personal 1RR restriction as part of being unblocked- but that will be up to the next reviewer. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2019 (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 suggest you read the edit warring policy - editors can be blocked for less than 4 reverts, so your block is legitimate. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then my appeal holds equal weight, right? There was no reason for the block to be indefinite, and the answer addresses none of my pleas. There is no way for me to demonstrate a change in behavior until I’m unblocked, considering the obvious logistical flaws in the initial decision. You claim I need to change my behavior, but that didn’t matter. I stayed within 3RR and still got blocked. Not because I violated anything, but because I used the basic functions of Wikipedia within its rules. One of my previous blocks that’s being held against me directly contradicts the disruptive editing policy. The reverts was because of a vandal, but because a single editor disagreed that it was a vandal that I was reverting, the block stood. Which means the block had nothing to do with my behavior. What does that tell me, between that and not violating 3RR? That I should do more wrong? Why should I change my behavior beyond accepting a personal 1RR policy? Why should everyone else get to revert me without regard for the rules while I get restricted for following them?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off. Since you had some involvement with the Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 As someone who has frequently edited the Arrowverse article in the past, you may be interested in participating in the newly created Arrowverse task force‎. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]