User talk:Jermzc

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Dmol (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at AirAsia 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. HkCaGu (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at AirAsia, you may be blocked from editing. HkCaGu (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ceradon (talk • edits) 08:22, 11 August 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have given reasons for my edits in the edit summary. I suspect there are users associated with the company trying to suppress and censor relevant information from reliable sources.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:07, 11 August 2015 (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.

If you need to be unblocked, apart from the reasons given above while declining your unblock request, you also should not be socking as you did here. The more you sock, the lesser is your chance of getting unblocked. — LeoFrank ^Talk 13:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block increased

Due to your abuse of multiple accounts, I have extended the block on this account to one month. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I understand that I've been blocked for "edit warring" and "socking", due to certain users reverting my edits which I believe was suppressing appropriate information. This block is no longer necessary. I'll no longer edit the page and I'll submit my proposed edit for appropriate dispute resolution.

Accept reason:

The two administrators who placed the blocks, and I, and Anthony Bradbury all agree that there is no longer any need for a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: In order to help assess your unblock request, can you answer the following questions?

Did you use the account Akeela16?
If so, why?
Have you also used any other accounts?
You have stated that you will no longer edit war on the article. Are you willing to state also that you will not use sockpuppets? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did.
I used the account as I believe other users were using multiple accounts to reverts my edits as well.
I have not used other accounts.
I will not use sockpuppets.

Jermzc (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to unblock unilaterally, because the edit warring is unarguable, and cannot be condoned even when correct; and the sockpuppetry is also obvious, and agreed. The statement which this editor has repeatedly been adding is, however, correct. the correct procedure which he should have followed when being repeatedly and incorrectly reverted was to go to WP:ANI, or possibly WP:AIV. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony.bradbury: I agree that I had engaged in "edit warring" and "socking", but it was in relation to a single incident. I am an amateur at this and was just indignant that what I thought was a correct insertion with appropriate references was being censored by certain users (or user). As I mentioned, I would follow up on my edits using the appropriate channels. I feel a one month block is disproportionate to my offence.00:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Your recent editing history at AirAsia 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. –Davey2010^Talk 01:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Hi Davey2010, I did post on SempreVolando's talk page in relation to this revert. I admit my history has indicated I edit-warred, but a single new revert surely does not suffice? Would be grateful if you could say something in the edit history of AirAsia 'cos your comments make me look like I edit-warred again. Jermzc (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You edit warred, You got unblocked on the basis that you pack it in, The first thing you then do after going to the talkpage is to then edit war again, You dicuss it on the talkpage and if there's consensus the info should be included you then can add it back otherwise you need to stop reverting. –Davey2010^Talk 02:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: But my edit was on different content... The previous content which I got blocked for has already been submitted to the talk page. Jermzc (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jermzc, I have the feeling you enjoy adding negative content to that AirAsia way too much. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yunshui, JamesBWatson, Anthony Bradbury, I wonder what you all make of the contributions of SpokeFree compared to this user's additions. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I would say it looks very interesting, so much so that I am considering whether to ask a CheckUser to look at it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson and Drmies: I was interested enough to consider a CU worthwhile - based on the technical evidence, I'd call it

Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). I haven't blocked SpokeFree myself, but I've no objection if either of you feel it's appropriate. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: I had forgotten you were a CU, or I would have consulted you right away. I'm not sure quite how likely "Possilikely" means, but in my judgement the behavioural evidence is borderline for a block on its own, so if the technical evidence looks at all likely, then I think the combined coincidence is just too great, so I shall block the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I have only added content which has been substantiated by proper reports from other sources. Even if they are negative reports, it does not mean that they should be excluded? This page can't only be about positive reports about AirAsia?

Anyway it seems to me that any negative report on AirAsia is being deleted, even if it comes from well-regarded sources. Look at the excluded content so far: Sources include Bloomberg, The Daily Mail, The West Australian, the Malay Mail Online. The theme seems to be delete, then talk.

You were blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing. The block length was increased because of sockpuppetry. You were then unblocked on the basis of assurances that you would not edit the article on which you had been edit warring, and that you would not use sockpuppets. Following the block, the very first thing you did was not only editing the article which, in order to get unblocked, you had said you would not edit, but it was also a return to the same edit war that got you blocked, too. Did you really imagine that there was any remote chance that doing that might not lead to a new block, for much longer than the previous blocks? Considering also also the generally combative and disruptive nature of your approach, the new block is indefinite. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson:

No argument on the permanent block here, just want to voice my side of the story.

I had not resumed my edit warring on the statement regarding my additions on the safety of the airline. I had also gone to the talk page regarding this issue.

I had, however, included 2 new additions regarding (a) Criticism in the handling of the QZ8501 crash and (b) Hub issues. I then reverted once on addition (a), and proceeded to place the topic for discussion on the talk page thereafter.

I did not realise my ban to editing was to the entire article.

AirAsia

@Yunshui:, @JamesBWatson:, @Anthony Bradbury:

Firstly, I'll like to thank you all for the initial unblock.

Given my history of edit warring, my credibility is zero right now, but I hope the outstanding topics which I've started in the AirAsia talk page may be resolved.

(a) Safety of the airline (b) Criticism in the handling of the QZ8501 crash (c) Hub issues

I believe the additions I've made are correct, in that a reader looking for information on AirAsia would likely find it of interest, and that it is backed by proper sources.

I also believe that in the context of the entire article, a corporation which lists its efficiency and awards should also be able to list legitimate criticism levelled against it. This will only give a fair reflection of the corporation to the reader.

Given that I've now no avenue for appealing my unblock I suppose that it is permanent. I thank you for all your time.

Jermzc (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly free to request an unblock. I didn't think it necessary to say so in the latest block notice, as the instructions on how to do so are still visible on this page, in an earlier block notice. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: I see. Thank you, I'll proceed to request for one. Jermzc (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do feel that I have not edit warred this time. My original disputed addition (regarding safety of the airline) was placed in the talk page for resolution. I then made 2 different additions to the article regarding (1) Criticism in the handling of the QZ8501 crash and (2) Hub issues, (1) which I had reverted once and provided my explanation in the edit summary. I did not revert any further when they were both subsequently deleted. I was unaware that I was not to make any further edits to the entire article at all, even if they were separate from the initial disputed addition. In any case I accept the block - just wanted to voice out.

Decline reason:

You said that you would no longer edit the page, and then you edited the page. In this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2015 (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 accept the block - just wanted to voice out" appears to mean that you are not actually asking for an unblock, in which case you are just wasting the time of whatever administrator comes here to review your phony "unblock request".
My comment that you returned "to the same edit war that got you blocked" seems to have been based on a misreading of the time of one of your edits. Nevertheless, you returned to edit-warring on the same article, and the editing was of substantially the same nature as the editing in the previous edit-war.
I don't see how anyone could read your statement "I'll no longer edit the page" as meaning anything other than that you would not edit the article.
There is very strong evidence that while you were awaiting a decision on your unblock request, and after you had said "I will not use sockpuppets" in support of that request, you did in fact use another sockpuppet. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Having been quite strongly supportive of your position, I find your behavior after unblock seriously disappointing. I shall take no further part in this or associated discussions. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]