User talk:SlySneakyFox

Welcome

Hello, SlySneakyFox, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

May 2021

Your recent editing history at Otokonoko 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. Ryk72 ^talk 23:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alert - Gender and sexuality

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SlySneakyFox reported by User:Ryk72 (Result: ). Thank you. Ryk72 ^talk 08:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:SlySneakyFox. It appears you continued to revert the article while the report was still active. Your revert was about 'trap', the exact word that was contested previously. There may still be time for you undo your last change to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Did the other user also receive an edit waring notice for they are doing the same thing? 03:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It has been undone, for now. SlySneakyFox (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for undoing your edit. I am one of the administrators who works on the 3RR board. If you had not undone your edit a block would be the next step. In the report, User:Bbb23 was considering an indefinite block of your account so I hope this will persuade you to pay more attention to our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SlySneakyFox, I can't believe you reinstated your edit after the above conversation. You're fortunate I blocked you only for a week. The next block will be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content

Why are you so insistent that "otokonoko" and "trap" be linked? You have yet to produce a single reliable source linking the terms, and when challenged on this, you choose - instead of actually sourcing your claims - to instead disparage the sources of other points of information in an article. You understand that this isn't an argument in your favor, right? Rather, it's in favor of paring out the unreliably-sourced information? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you for engaging with me in discussion on the Glossary of anime and manga‎ talkpage; I truly appreciate it. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NekoKatsun: Because they are linked. People have a bias against linking them in my opinion. This is from seeing people only go after that term and the sources only once they are attached to the term not before. At the very least it should be citation needed via WP:BLUE. My "disparage the sources of other points of information in an article" Is because the sources I provide are as reliable as those sources. I fully understand if they agree both sources will be removed and I am perfectly fine with that. Always happy to have a talk and include other opinions. It's far better then an edit war even if they disagree with me. SlySneakyFox (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Otokonoko. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

To my understanding the edit warring report has already been taken care of as no action taken and the 3 1 day period was over. This edit was not exactly about the previous argument as it's different text and different sources. I have also added it to the talk page. SlySneakyFox (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of this excuses edit warring. Please read our edit warring policy before making your next request. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:05, 4 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have reread WP:EW. Specifically "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring" The most recent edit was not a revert. It was a new entry with new sources but same topic. If the other user wanted to challenge this new entry they could revert and it would go back to the talk page. I was notified of the 3RR rule and undone the recent revert and waited before making any edits, reverts or not. This edit was the start of a new BRD cycle not a continuation of an edit war. To my understanding this is a ban because of the most recent edit because the previous edit warring complaint was deemed as "No action". Was the edit warring complaint retroactively changed to 1 week because I made a new edit with new sources? What rule does this break? WP:EW says be bold and with my new sources and different addition I was however this was criticized as "An extraordinary amount of chutzpah" Nothing in WP:EW says I can't make new edits with new sources albeit same topic. SlySneakyFox (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is a distinction between edit warring and a 3RR violation that you aren't grasping here. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2021 (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.

The edit warring policy also says "it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule". You were blocked for edit warring not a 3RR violation. Looking back on the page history you have been edit warring for months now. You are not entitled to X number of reverts a day. This is a long term issue and it needs to stop. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: If that's the case how come I wasn't banned when the other user filed the complaint? If I file a complaint on them will they also qualify under edit warring? I will accept my ban if it was for that. However it is very clear it was for the recent edit given by the comment "An extraordinary amount of chutzpah. Blocked one week" in my section of WP:AN/EW SlySneakyFox (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your final edit to the page was to once again add the term "trap". It was clearly the same matter that was contested. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you agree now it was about the last edit. Same topic but not the same matter as the edit war. As that was about the same sources and same sentence. This edit was a completely different sources and different sentences but still about trap, yes. This was a new BRD cycle. It was not an addition to the revert edit war. SlySneakyFox (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Okay. A question then to help me determine how big the ball park is for "same matter". If I reverted the most recent edit of Otokonoko for "claim is not supported by source" and leave a comment in the talk page. Would that be seen as the RD in the BRD-cycle or would that be seen as more edit warring? SlySneakyFox (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any edit that undoes the edit of another user is a revert. The answer is in your question "If I reverted...". Keep in mind that BRD is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.

Our edit warring policy is. The BRD page even talks about edit warring. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: I will take that as a yes, it will be seen as a continuation of edit warring. If I make an edit (not revert) to which I believe is a refinement then go to the talk page to discuss complete removal then that should be okay? SlySneakyFox (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the edit warring policy: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors". This is the standard used. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SlySneakyFox: If I may chime in? Discuss a thing on the talkpage and gain consensus BEFORE making changes to article space. It's really hard to edit war if you're not editing article space. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NekoKatsun: Right back at you. Reminder your most recent edit had no discussion in the talk page. SlySneakyFox (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. And I've never been accused of edit-warring, let alone been blocked for it. I suggest you improve your own behaviour before trying to police others. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Because of your ongoing disruptive and tendentious editing, you have been blocked indefinitely from Otokonoko and Talk: Otokonoko. If you extend your disruption to other articles, you will be blocked from those articles as well, or blocked completely. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 25 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

The edits I have made recently to the page were were not disruptive. The first was a revert then conversation on the reliability of a new source. The second edit was in agreement with the other editor. The third edit was a compromise with the other editor with some time for others to interject, which they did not. The most recent edit was an undoing of compromise since another editor chimed up after to say they disagreed. SlySneakyFox (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I just spent a fair amount of time reading through the extensive discussion on the talk page. I do not see a consensus for your change, I also don't see any compromise agreed on. I see you arguing a point extensively for days, repeating the same arguments, and I see multiple other editors disagreeing with you.

I also see a slow motion edit war by you on the article page. It is in fact disruptive to try to wear down the opposition by constantly arguing the same set of opinions while occasionally making edits to support your position which is not supported by consensus.

I think this block is justified. I will also point out that you have been issued a discretionary sanction notice on May 3rd informing you that these areas are held to a higher standard. I am declining you unblock request and will reiterate Cullen's warning that further disruption in this area can result in a greater response.

I think being blocked from just this article was lenient. Any administrator could have issued a topic ban from gender related subjects entirely. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:50, 25 August 2021 (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.