User talk:Jack4576

May 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned in this discussion with this comment, edit warring while seemingly not understanding that it is edit warring is a recurring issue that the block log shows is not likely to be resolved with timed blocks. I have no objection to an unblock if the editor can demonstrate a genuine understanding of these issues. I suggest you take time to read Wikipedia:Edit warring, as even if there were a consensus supporting those edits (which does not appear to be the case), it's edit warring either way which is something I've mentioned before. - Aoidh (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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).

Jack4576 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This Admin is WP:INVOLVED as me and them have a history. I would not be opposed to this block being imposed by another admin if they think such a thing is necessary.

INDEF is also an excessive sanction. I genuinely believed there was consensus, and I stopped reverting edits after a compromise position was reached. A time-limited or page-limited block would be more appropriate. Jack4576 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Putting an end date on the block does nothing to guarantee that your edit warring will cease, and blocking from a specific article or page doesn't guarantee that you won't edit war on other articles or pages. I agree that this block is necessary to prevent disruption and that you haven't provided sufficient grounds to remove it yet. As such, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

Per WP:INVOLVED, One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. My previous interaction with you was in an administrative capacity as I previously blocked you for edit warring after a report at ANEW. If that's the history you're referring to, that does not make me INVOLVED. If you're referring to something else that I'm genuinely unaware of, please provide diffs of that previous history. - Aoidh (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if that was true, INDEF is excessive. I’m happy to agree to stop editing that page and move on, and just focus on article creation.

I also think it’s pretty unfair that i’m getting punished for reverting, and other edits who did exactly the same thing weren’t even warned. My actions at least had the backing of three other editors that believed the opening wording was problematic. I was attempting to enforce that position past two other editors that edit warred without any such support. I even tried to resolve the issue through third op and RfC; engaging with the site’s dispute resolution processes, and not just blanket edit warring.

Could I request that you time limit the ban to a month or something, things can calm down; and I’ll go back to just focusing on articles.

Perhaps, on reflection, I got a bit riled up on the ‘Black War’ page because I find it very abhorrent that Australia’s most significant genocide is poorly drafted and doesn’t clearly state the modern academic majority position that a genocide occurred. Jack4576 (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Your block log, talk page history, and noticeboard discussions such as this July 2023 discussion show that there is a recurring pattern of disruptive behavior that timed blocks are not effective at mitigating in the long term and that an indefinite block is necessary to prevent further disruption until you can show that you understand the reason for the block(s) and convince an administrator that it is no longer needed. - Aoidh (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

These are pretty isolated incidents, and they don’t have much in common with the behaviour here. I’ve made some changes for the way I behave since last July; focusing mainly on article creation, and the vast majority of my contributions to this site are constructive.

Shame that I won’t be able to contribute anymore due to a tiny dispute over a single sentence in a lede; but sure, that’s within your discretion. Jack4576 (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:NOTTHEM for the right path to being unblocked. Moxy🍁 02:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I doubt there’s a path out to being INDEF’d at this point. I disagree with the reasons for this block. I’m not going to pretend that I think my edits to Black War were unreasonable. They followed consensus, and unlike the admin I think that consensus was pretty clear.

It seems that me backing down from that view is a requirement for my unblocking. Jack4576 (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Indef doesn't mean forever, and in fact for a contributor who appears to be competent, well-intentioned and here to build an encyclopedia, it seldom is intended to mean forever. It's almost always appealable at some point. Indefs aren't somehow 'harsher' than time-limited or partial blocks. An indef means an admin thinks you need to be willing to discuss the concern and agree to avoid repeating it in future rather than simply waiting out a time-limited block. A full rather than partial means an admin thinks the concern isn't limited to a single article or namespace.

I disagree with the reasons for this block. The reason for the block was you were edit-warring. It doesn't matter whether your edits were reasonable. It doesn't matter whether they had consensus. It doesn't matter who is right.

I’m not going to pretend that I think my edits to Black War were unreasonable. You don't have to pretend that. No admin cares whether they were or weren't or that you believe it. You do have to at minimum recognize you mishandled the situation by edit-warring and commit to avoiding doing that again.

They followed consensus, and unlike the admin I think that consensus was pretty clear. Doesn't matter. It's quite likely the admin didn't read that wall of text closely enough to know whether there was or wasn't consensus, as it simply does not matter. The block wasn't for inserting content against consensus. It was for edit warring.

It seems that me backing down from that view is a requirement for my unblocking. If by "your view" you mean that you should be allowed to edit war because you believe you are right and believe you have consensus, yes, backing down from that is a minimum requirement for unblocking.

Hope this helps. Valereee (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks Valereee, appreciate your comment Jack4576 (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What happened to this, Jack? – bradv 02:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There was (and continues to be) a consensus that the current wording in the lede of black war needs to be changed due to presenting false balance re: the historiographical account of the genocide. Four editors favoured a change; two editors kept reverting in spite of that.

It’s a shame that my attempts to follow consensus are being punished as a form of edit warring; and the editors who were reverting against that consensus weren’t even warned. Jack4576 (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You might be right, but just as @Valereee was saying the issue at hand is getting unblocked and like it or not it IS being characterized as edit warring so the focus is how to come back from that successfully. @Bradv might have unintentionally got you off track into that whole who is right and who is wrong vs. what is and what isn't consensus beeswax, but I think what bradv might have meant in a subtle way is that sometimes you have to know when to contribute and let go (like the userbox on my page). Now, the god of Wikipedia will probably strike me down for saying something like this, and I don't know if the phrase "pick your battles" will mean anything to you, but if you will also listen up to what @Moxy is saying about taking responsibility for yourself and forgetting about what everyone else is doing, then I think the god of Wikipedia will forgive me for also telling you that you might stand a good chance to live to fight another day. There are several people here trying to help in various ways. Good luck friend. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 07:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

In other words, I suggest you give in. You can't win them all bud. You gotta admit there were other alternatives you could have employed to establish consensus that would have had much less chance of being deemed as "edit warring", right? So, that's kinda the point. They want to see you use those alternative methods more than the ones you are currently using, not so much that you were wrong about the consensus/edits. P.S. this idea you have about "interim consensus" does not itself have any consensus as part of the consensus building process so you are going to get hella lotta pushback from that. I would completely ditch that strategy until you are able to get a consensus to implement it into the guidance as part of the consensus building process over at WP:Concensus. Besides, this "interim consensus" idea is way too messy and chaotic anyway. Imagine using it on a large scale discussion where the number of daily participants causes the "interim consensus" to fluctuate so much that the article would undergo so many back and forth changes it would be near impossible to keep up with. It is exactly why we strive to keep the article stable as possible until discussion is completed. I mean I know how hard it is to see things are going your way in the discussion and you want to make the article stable with your version before some jack-hole ruins it all, but if you are confident you are being reasonable with your destiny then you must show some faith that fate will be reasonable with you. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 11:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

As always, thank you Huggums for the sage and thoughtful words and advice. My current intention is to take a wikibreak for a few weeks or months before requesting an unblock. My approach regarding the above article was ultimately unproductive. I think it might have been better to have just let the RfC run its course regardless of whether the stable version was problematic or not. I’ll take this as a learning experience to draw upon if/when I’m allowed to start participating and contributing again. Jack4576 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)