User talk:Jmlk18

September 2016

Your recent editing history at Sexual slavery 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 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:18, 21 September 2016 (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. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:49, 21 September 2016 (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).

Jmlk18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You either made a mistake, as I only edited 3 times, or you are using that as an excuse to block me for other reasonsJmlk18 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring. You will need to address that; while breaking the three-revert rule is a strong indication of edit-warring, it's entirely possible to edit-war without breaking it. Huon (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2016 (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.

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).

Jmlk18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not a sockpuppet. Would you care for showing any evidence so I can defend myself, instead of throwing unverifiablr accusations, which cannot be disputed because you show no proofs to argue about? P. S. In the real world, it seems you didn't know, when people makes accusations they show evidence which can be verified: when they don't usually judges can't take them seriously Jmlk18 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppet. —DoRD (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2016 (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.

A few things.

You have been blocked by a CheckUser. These admins have special tools that allow them to cross reference IP's against user accounts. That you have been blocked by an admin with these tools means they have linked this account with another account. Doing this while blocked is a violation of the WP:EVASION policy.
A CheckUser is forbidden by the Wikipedia foundation to reveal any information they uncover when using their tools. This is to prevent any violation of a user's rights to privacy, which has legal repercussions.
Wikipedia is a privately owned website. The site administrators have been granted their tools by the wider community to prevent disruption to the project. In this case, you have 1. edit warred, violating WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR, and 2. edited anonymously or edited from another account, thus violating WP:SOCK and WP:EVASION. Hence you have been blocked indefinitely. Blackmane (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]