User talk:Gareth1893

Welcome!

Hello, Gareth1893, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 07:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two discretionary sanctions notifications

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

June 2018

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Southern

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You will find the Edit Warring discussion here: [1] Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Gareth1893 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I never used multiple accounts for ill reasons, as you will be able to tell from my history I do not log in frequently to wikipedia, I signed into the wrong account (GarethLW) and submitted an error request, when I checked my contributions list I noticed it was far too short so I realised I had another account and logged in on Gareth1893, if these two accounts is a problem I will happily log in and deactivate GarethLW but I never used multiple accounts to get around blocks or bans or to edit spam.

Accept reason:

The user's description is convincing; they may well have forgotten they had an account between 30 June and 2 September, and the names of the accounts don't suggest an intent to deceive. I will unblock this, the original, account and leave Garethlw blocked. Please take care to remember this account from now on, Gareth. Bishonen | talk 11:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bishonen, even though I am happy for GarethLW to remain banned, it does state in the rules "Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons", I didn't use the second account for illegitimate reasons. Are you able to tell me what the suspected illegitimate reason was so I avoid it in the future?. Thank you for unbanning me though.Gareth1893 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have remembered your original account, I can't see any good reason for you to have two, and in such a case it's normal for the newer account to be blocked. As for the reason for your block on this account, you'll have to ping Yunshui for that. Bishonen | talk 11:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, as I said I'm happy for GarethLW to remain banned but the rules do state that multiple accounts are allowed just not for illegitimate use. Are you able to help me understand what I did to get banned please Yunshui relating to multiple accounts? Thanks Gareth1893 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You used both accounts to comment on Talk:Elon Musk. This meets one of the definitions of abuse of multiple accounts at WP:ILLEGIT: "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts". Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui Thank you for clearing that up. Gareth1893 (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Your recent editing history at Lauren Southern 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 BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in 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. Bradv🍁 20:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to leave you a duplicate warning, so please read this one again. Thanks. Bradv🍁 21:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: I was only stopping additional changes being made until we get a consensus, it appears on the talk page that only minority are in favour of keeping the white genocide section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth1893 (talk • contribs) 21:38, April 1, 2019 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works though. We keep the version from before the edit war started until we've reached a consensus to change it. In this case, that would be the article as it stood on March 28. Also, please sign your posts. Bradv🍁 21:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's late here. What does Wikipedia class as a consensus? There seem to be people on both sides of this issue and it doesn't show signs of resolution. What happens to stop the arguments going on indefinitely? Gareth1893 (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the message above: If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Bradv🍁 21:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. Gareth1893 (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Your recent editing history at Lauren Southern 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.

You need to take it to talk, you're currently on your second revert, reverting that same content (or any similar variation on that content) again will be crossing the 3RR redline and looking at the number of warnings you've had regarding edit warring at this article, any further edit warring will certainly result in a block. Bacondrum (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]