User talk:Wadaad

Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history at United Nations 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ythlev (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ythlev (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at United Nations. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

@Bbb23: I clearly did not engage in edit-warring as I was restoring a wikipedia page to remove content that has no consensus per WP:NOCONSENSUS and user Ythlev's violated your ruling on to not revert/include the disputed content prior to reaching consensus FIRST.[1] I did not nothing wrong and you are haphazardly banning me. Wadaad (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You kept on reverting to your preferred version of the page. Even if you are correct and this was the consensus version, it was pretty clearly edit-warring. Yamla (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2019 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

@Yamla: & @Bbb23: I was clearly not edit-warring as I was explaining to user Ythlev WHY the content was being removed in the edit summaries (following WP:NOCONSENSUS)

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

Furthermore, I was in the process of reporting the user (see this [2] and this [3]). These are not the signs of an 'edit warrior' but a person following wikipedia's rules. Neither did I violate WP:3RR nor was I the first[4] to include the disputed content. I did not violate any of wikipedia's policies and I have a feeling that I am being haphazardly banned. Wikpedia is becoming practically unusable for me if I keep getting treated like this. My prior one-week ban was for protecting a page from a sock puppeteer (see this [5]) and my current one month ban is for restoring material that had no consensus following all the steps according to wikipedia. These are not the hallmarks of a disruptive editor but signs of haphazard admin decision making. Wadaad (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=<span class="template-ping">@[[User:Yamla|Yamla]]:</span> & <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]]:</span> I was clearly not edit-warring as I was explaining to user Ythlev WHY the content was being removed in the edit summaries (following [[WP:NOCONSENSUS]])
<blockquote class="talkquote" >In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results '''<big>in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit</big>'''.</blockquote>
Furthermore, I was in the process of reporting the user (see this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ythlev&diff=prev&oldid=916970949&diffmode=source] and this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=916975012&diffmode=source]). These are not the signs of an 'edit warrior' but a person following wikipedia's rules. Neither did I violate [[WP:3RR]] nor was I the first[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations&type=revision&diff=915497755&oldid=915332704&diffmode=source] to include the disputed content. I did not violate any of wikipedia's policies and I have a feeling that I am being haphazardly banned. Wikpedia is becoming practically unusable for me if I keep getting treated like this. My prior one-week ban was for protecting a page from a [[WP:SOCK|sock puppeteer]] (see this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Middayexpress/Archive#1_August_2019]) and my current one month ban is for restoring material that had no consensus following all the steps according to wikipedia. These are not the hallmarks of a disruptive editor but signs of haphazard admin decision making. [[User:Wadaad|Wadaad]] ([[User talk:Wadaad#top|talk]]) 17:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=<span class="template-ping">@[[User:Yamla|Yamla]]:</span> & <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]]:</span> I was clearly not edit-warring as I was explaining to user Ythlev WHY the content was being removed in the edit summaries (following [[WP:NOCONSENSUS]])
<blockquote class="talkquote" >In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results '''<big>in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit</big>'''.</blockquote>
Furthermore, I was in the process of reporting the user (see this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ythlev&diff=prev&oldid=916970949&diffmode=source] and this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=916975012&diffmode=source]). These are not the signs of an 'edit warrior' but a person following wikipedia's rules. Neither did I violate [[WP:3RR]] nor was I the first[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations&type=revision&diff=915497755&oldid=915332704&diffmode=source] to include the disputed content. I did not violate any of wikipedia's policies and I have a feeling that I am being haphazardly banned. Wikpedia is becoming practically unusable for me if I keep getting treated like this. My prior one-week ban was for protecting a page from a [[WP:SOCK|sock puppeteer]] (see this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Middayexpress/Archive#1_August_2019]) and my current one month ban is for restoring material that had no consensus following all the steps according to wikipedia. These are not the hallmarks of a disruptive editor but signs of haphazard admin decision making. [[User:Wadaad|Wadaad]] ([[User talk:Wadaad#top|talk]]) 17:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=<span class="template-ping">@[[User:Yamla|Yamla]]:</span> & <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]]:</span> I was clearly not edit-warring as I was explaining to user Ythlev WHY the content was being removed in the edit summaries (following [[WP:NOCONSENSUS]])
<blockquote class="talkquote" >In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results '''<big>in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit</big>'''.</blockquote>
Furthermore, I was in the process of reporting the user (see this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ythlev&diff=prev&oldid=916970949&diffmode=source] and this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=916975012&diffmode=source]). These are not the signs of an 'edit warrior' but a person following wikipedia's rules. Neither did I violate [[WP:3RR]] nor was I the first[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations&type=revision&diff=915497755&oldid=915332704&diffmode=source] to include the disputed content. I did not violate any of wikipedia's policies and I have a feeling that I am being haphazardly banned. Wikpedia is becoming practically unusable for me if I keep getting treated like this. My prior one-week ban was for protecting a page from a [[WP:SOCK|sock puppeteer]] (see this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Middayexpress/Archive#1_August_2019]) and my current one month ban is for restoring material that had no consensus following all the steps according to wikipedia. These are not the hallmarks of a disruptive editor but signs of haphazard admin decision making. [[User:Wadaad|Wadaad]] ([[User talk:Wadaad#top|talk]]) 17:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}