User talk:Orchomen

Orchomen, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Orchomen! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Orchomen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trajan

I was going to post the Welcome template, but I see someone has already done that. I'll add my welcome, though, and add a note to say "good work" at Trajan! – Corinne (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Your recent editing history at Laurie Fortier 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 article's 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. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reverted by 3 other editors there. That's generally a sign that you're going against consensus. I'd strongly encourage you to drop this now. Any further reverting is likely to result in a trip to WP:ANEW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Seriously, are you going to make any effort to look at the changes you're rolling back? Orchomen (talk

Accept reason:

Looking at your recent contributions, I agree that they were in relation to grammatical issues that you felt need correcting. The reason for the block was due to the fact that you repeatedly reverted other editors' changes and engaged in edit warring. Nonetheless, I feel that I have overstated your block; I don't have obvious evidence to show that you were being purposefully harmful to the project, and for this I am going to unblock you. I apologize for the overstatement of the block I imposed upon you. Please agree to discuss disputes on the articles' talk pages and refrain from edit warring in the future. Thank you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)) 05:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at How to Build a Better Boy.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 article's 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. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent edit-warring on a number of articles. Considering the extent of your edit-warring, and the fact that you have received several warnings about edit-warring and have ignored them all, I regard this as a minimal block to try to get across to you the point that complying with Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring is not optional. I hope that you will take that point, and will not return to edit-warring when the block is over. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once you began the serial sockpuppetry, I had no choice but to indef block you. I could care less about the content of your edits, but to sockpuppet and revert back and forth an extraordinary number of times, swapping IPs out, this shows a clear lack of respect for the community and a battleground mentality that is inconsistent with editing in a collegiate environment. Reviewing admin should consider the stalking evidence at ANI as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying these posts from Amaury from WP:ANI so that any Admin who comes here can clearly see what Orchomen has been up since they were recently blocked:

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

And now they're block evading as 31.218.131.168. Nope. This user does not deserve a second chance. Not in the slightest. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To further demonstrate why the user this needs an indefinite block, they have been evading their block using multiple IPs, causing some articles to be protected. The IPs are:

31.218.131.168 (Blocked)
2.48.71.139 (Blocked)
94.205.147.29 (Blocked)
91.239.124.123 (Blocked)
159.148.186.109 (Blocked)
31.218.131.182 (Blocked)

A range block may also be needed, but I'm not sure how it'd work with different IPs. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I know I won't be unblocked, so I'm not asking to be. Just letting BU Rob13 and everyone else know I will stop.Orchomen (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No valid reason given to unblock.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:53, 18 October 2016 (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.

With your serial and persistent block evasion and sock puppetry using a magnitude amount of IPs, we have no reason to believe you. This request will be rejected. Nice try, though. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why you accused me of sockpuppetry in the first place. I wasn't.

You'll note I say I know it'll be rejected, just putting the word out there.

But still, whatever BU Rob13 has planned sounds like unnecessarily disruptive to other users or a nuisance to him to implement. So he can do what he will, but I'll leave it alone and maybe that's easier for everybody.

I trust Amaury and IJBall's instincts about the sock master. Whatever BU Rob13 has planned regarding this whole chaos is because of you. You've been on a rampage of serial socking, resulting in numerous blocks. Don't blame others for your actions. You are the cause of this. Nice try, though. Quoting Amaury here, I had to. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I blaming anyone else?

If you do ever achieve unblock, can I remind you to sign your posts on this or other talk pages?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can I request TPA withdrawal? This is going absolutely nowhere. MPD (Talk to me!) 15:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFER could still apply to you if you quit the socking now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the above request, I'd prefer to see voluntary restraint. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Understood.Orchomen (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

x3

Welcome!

Hello, Orchomen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Orchomen (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]