User talk:Southwestmetal

June 2022

Your recent editing history 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. Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southwestmetal, you've been warned above about edit warring. You were asked to join the discussion on the article's talk page and are refusing to do so. Attempting to brute force your way to your preferred version of the article is not going to work. Consider this your final warning. If you persist in edit warring on the article Sonic Frontiers, on the image File:Sonic Frontiers gameplay screenshot.png, or anywhere else on the project, you will be blocked from editing. You can either engage in discussion at the article talk page if you want it to be changed, or you can revert...yet again. If you choose the latter, you will be blocked. Your choice. I hope you choose the former. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And just one minute after I place this warning you're back at it, edit warring some more [1]? Time for a block. You need to re-think your approach here. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of for 31 hours for continuing to edit war on Sonic Frontiers. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Hammersoft (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- How is your block warranted? I never went past WP:3RR, maybe you're the one breaking ToS? MetalSlave (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Blocked on edit warring but never broke WP:3RR, I might as well have been blocked for editing the article once. MetalSlave (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you read the entire edit warring policy, you will see that you can be determined to be edit warring both with fewer than three reverts, and if your reverts are spread out over a longer period of time. Wikilawyering by following the letter of the policy but not its spirit is treated no differently. What matters is if it appears the disruption will continue if not stopped. As said below, 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts in a 24 hour period. 331dot (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2022 (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.

You conducted six different reverts, performing the exact same reversion [2][3][4][5][6][7]. The WP:3RR policy does not give you permission to revert three times every day, only to keep repeating the same edit warring behaviors indefinitely. Please note that the policy says "While any amount of edit warring may lead to sanctions..." You are clearly edit warring, and you are clearly not willing to engage in discussion on the article talk page as I directed you to do. You ignored multiple warnings regarding the edit warring, and continued the same disruptive behavior. Either you address the serious edit warring disruption you have caused and agree to abide by our policies here or it is highly unlikely your block appeal will be accepted. It won't be me that reviews it, so speak well and tell the reviewing admin how you intend on complying with our policies moving forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that behavior such as claiming you didn't see a request to go the talk page (edit summary) when you most emphatically had seen it as evidenced by this edit summary isn't helpful to your case. If you resume edit warring once this block expires, the next block will be for considerably longer. If you have a case to make regarding your edits to the article, then make it at the discussion. Attempting to force your way through will just lead to another block. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't decline the unblock myself because I participated in the discussion (that you so far have refused to constructively participate in) but you have objectively violated 3RR. If you don't see that, you need to rethink your understanding of the concept. Good block. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I never made three reverts in on day. My fourth edit was 48 hours after the third, well after the 24-hour 3RR window. I broke no rules and yet I'm still blocked. Help me to understand how this justifies your decision to block. MetalSlave (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You we're blocked for edit warring. Take a much closer read on that one. Sergecross73 msg me 03:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring isn't 4 edits in 48 hours. I've taken quite the look. MetalSlave (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it's not. It's just generally reverting a lot without coming to a consensus through talk page discussion. Which is exactly what you did to get yourself blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 04:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MetalSlave: here's a big clue. If your first talk page comment came less than 2 minutes before you were blocked, and you've still made more comments on your own user talk page post block in an attempt to be unblocked than you ever have anywhere else and even still, all those talk page comments combined is still less than the number of reverts you've made, you've likely lost any argument about how you were not edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why the following people might be on the same IP address as you?

Seaman3000 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jo2uke (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Platvile (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Foxbox2002 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Also, Special:Diff/1059888189 and Special:Diff/1086948340. This wouldn't really be a huge deal except that one of those accounts engaged in page move vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Fyi; I've just blocked User:Metallic Lord as a suspected sockpuppet of this account. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jo2uke. Thank you. —{Canuck lehead} 22:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Jo2uke per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jo2uke. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]