User talk:Smith0124

Hello Smith0124! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! StonyBrook (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its a talk page, stop reading this and go talk! Yeah, I'm talking to you! Stop reading the TALK page!

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: I'm sorry. I really am. There's no justifying it. But Darryl and I need to have equal punishment, the longer block for sure. This is both of our fault, though Darryl was the one jumping the gun and implementing his/her edits before the Rfc on the matter was closed. We both should be banned for 2 weeks, if not longer, and banned for the same amount of time. The whole argument stemmed from Darryl believing that a previous Rfc said that candidates should go on the infoboxes if they reached 5%, but it never mentioned withdrawn candidates, and the standard has been not to include them. So after some argument I started an Rfc and Darryl kept vandalizing and edit warring, even trying to close the Rfc despite having a clear bias and participating in it themself. As for my past, I've tried really hard not to edit war and it's been months since my last issue, I've been very collaborative and I was just protecting the rules when Darryl went beyond the discussion. We were both equally at fault and we should both get the same punishment. This isn't about justifying my actions, this is about preventing more breakage of the rules. Smith0124 (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out at ANI, your block is longer because this is your fifth(!) block for edit warring since January of this year. Maybe don't do that. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@M Imtiaz: I haven't been blocked in months. And the last block I received was me combatting sockpuppetry and I took the hit anyway. Despite that, I've really improved since then, I've been very collaborative on talk pages, I've done everything in my power not to edit war and that reflects in the months long gap. I did that even in this incident, but Darryl went beyond the discussion and consistently broke the rules. I understand that I was in the wrong to edit war, but I took all measures to try and prevent it. This whole thing was dragged on for days by Darryl despite my repeated attempts to deescalate. I accept my punishment but the second Darryl is unblocked he/she is going to continue to edit war because I'll still be blocked. According to Wikipedia rules, the edits stay the initial way (my way in this case), and the Rfc is still ongoing. Darryl also broke Wikipedia rules by trying to close the Rfc on his/her own, when Darryl had a clear bias and participated in the Rfc. If he/she is unblocked before me he/she will revert back to his/her edits and unjustly close the Rfc, both of which are against the rules. At the very least Darryl needs to be banned from those pages and Talk: 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries for the two weeks. This isn't about justifying my actions, this is about preventing more breakage of the rules. Smith0124 (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, those articles are under sanctions & limited to 1 revert per day. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Peterjack1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same ISP, same geolocation, same topics, same tendency toward obsessively reverting everyone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]