User talk:WikiVolunteerBen

July 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Lana Lokteff. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Lana Lokteff 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 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.

Notice and warning

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hi User:WikiVolunteerBen, I've made a report on your recent comment [1] here at ANI: [2]. Regards, -Darouet (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know Darouet. I've already clarified it, I'm a bit surprised about asking someone their ethnicity being a "major red flag". WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing yourself no favours, you just need to accept what you did was unacceptable and stop trying to defend it. At this time you are facing one topic ban, keep on and you will get a site ban.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PUT THE BUNNY BACK IN THE BOX!Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude (or dudess), I haven't done anything bad. I asked a frigging question, nothing else. How in the world is this such a big deal? Just because people interpret that shit in all kinds of ways shouldn't mean that I am supposed to be banned, what the hell. I already apologized like 10 times by now and said I wouldn't ask that damn question or any question regarding ethnicities again. But no, that's not enough. Now people want to topic ban me, how is this even a thing? This site is a joke, seriously. No free speech, not even questions are allowed on here, wow. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did warn you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. New account incoming, I won't let myself get silenced by fucking people like that. See you around. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, admins range block please.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You fags are a joke. No understanding at all. I won't care about a range block as this is on a VPN lmao. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why:

Your comment "I'm not distancing myself from white supremacism, I even like some of the ideas of it" was sufficient reason alone.
You clearly did frame the "are you Jewish" question as though you thought it was a source of the disagreement (I don't care how much later backpedaling you've done, that's obviously what you meant at the time)
Defending apartheid and even defending violence in support of apartheid and advocating the creation of "ethnostates".

If you sincerely think that you're not being a racist or a white supremacist or anything else, think long and hard about your nations history during the 1930s and what you've been saying here. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, off to make a new account then. Won't let myself get silenced. <Gross personal attack redacted> WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I advise against this, very strongly. You will get a range block and zero sympathy, and I have really tried to be sympathetic. You have about 3 minutes to withdraw this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, don't even bother with sympathy, this just shows that it's just another Nazi troll who doesn't get they lost the war. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really give a timeline like that when you don't have the ability to block. Natureium (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wild stab in the dark (it's about how long I think it will take for an admin to get thoroughly pissed off and block talk page access).Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK 5 minutes.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]