User talk:ShiningExample

May 2016

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain with this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain. 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. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account is blocked per your admissions here here, where you clearly admit that you're using an alternate account for an illegitimate reason - because you don't want to associate these edits to your main account. Per WP:SCRUTINY, this is not allowed, and you are blocked per Wikipedia's policy on WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. You are free to continue on with the discussion, but only as your older, established main account. (Though if you do, I recommend reading through the long, extensive talk page discussions on the topic. You keep on asking for proof of these discussions and consensus on them, and they're present on the very talk page you're asking on, or its respective archived discussions.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be no problem to offer diffs, would it? I have checked through the revision history and I can only find evidence for inclusion without consensus (but also without challenge). Can you or can you not offer any diffs to prove your assertion?

I disclosed that this is a second account. I use it as per WP:VALIDALT; Privacy.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have fully disclosed that this was a secondary account and use it as explained in WP:VALIDALT, which also includes not participating in any votes. I expected at least some level of hostility, because the edit I tried to improve upon was hostile in nature and an ad-hominem towards a diverse, indistinct group (derogatory sweeping/blanket statement) and I assumed people in favour of such antagonizing ad-hominems would be equally inclined jump at MY throat. I was right unfortunately and I'm glad I did not associate my other account with this kind of negativity (which could possibly lead to wiki-hounding or other forms of harassment in the worst case). I have neither engaged in any votes nor do I intend to. I know which limitations apply to secondary accounts and I abide by them. My contribution history proves that I was offering advice, suggestions and tried to have meaningful cooperation with the parties involved (of which they wanted nothing). It would be nice if I could get unblocked, but that would probably mean I might step into that hostile and toxic environment again which I'm less and less inclined to do, seeing how people are treated there.

Decline reason:

Per WP:SCRUTINY, not a valid use an alternative account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:53, 11 May 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.

For the record, no attacks or hostility were placed towards this individual. He was asked to stop edit warring by removing direct quotes from reliable sources without discussion, because a prior consensus supported their use. Once he started discussing, he proceeded to get upset when current discussion matched the prior consensus that went against his POV. When he tried to play the "Listen to me, I'm experienced" card, he disclosed he was violating WP:SCRUTINY with a sockpuppet account, and was blocked. That's all there is to it - he was accused of POV-pushing in favor of a video game at worst, nothing more. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]