User talk:Ishmailer

October 2018

Your recent editing history at Liberland 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.
Liberland is a micronation, not a self-declared state, since that would require having a permanent population. Which Liberland doesn't have, and with all probability never will get... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're having a joke I take it, same as your claim Liberland is a microstate when it isn't. You're involved in edit war so perhaps I should reciprocate with identical warning message on your talk page. --Ishmailer (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ishmailer reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: ). Thank you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Microstate vs micronation

Don't edit the English language Wikipedia if you don't know enough English to understand what the articles say. Microstate, as you have mentioned in your edit summaries, and used as an excuse for repeatedly claiming that Liberland is a self-declared state, is not the same thing as a micronation, the word you have repeatedly removed. A micronation is a claimed state/nation that, like Liberland, isn't required to control the claimed territory, and, like Liberland, doesn't need a permanent population, while a microstate is a real, recognized country, like Andorra or the Vatican State. And a self-declared state is a part of another state that has declared independence from that state, controls its own territory and has a permanent population. Which means that Liberland is a micronation, and nothing else... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 14:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio I'm terribly sorry to have breached the edit warring rule and so the 24 hour block was clearly justified. I'll be mindful in future to realize there are only three reverts per day, so I will be better at keeping count. Thank you. --Ishmailer (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Ishmailer. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Liberland, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. I get the impression that you somehow have a connection to Liberland, and are deliberately trying to confuse other editors with the microstate/micronation thing, in order to get readers to believe that Liberland is a "self-declared state", and not the commercial/promotional thing it really is. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no affiliation to Liberland I assure you, but I consider this a good time for me to drop the stick. OK. --Ishmailer (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Liberland. Thank you. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 14:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the message to remove the name of the editor who kept falsely putting a tag on the article. --Ishmailer (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on WP:ANI. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 12:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 I am sincerely grateful for this edit[1], but my ability to thank has been disabled along with the block. --Ishmailer (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did that because it's been a redirect for two and a half years. But: if you are feeling particularly grateful, I'd be grateful in turn if you would apologise to Softlavender and Thomas.W for being so...blunt. If you also promise not to resort to language like that in future, and likewise promise to stear clear of all Liberland-related articles, you might be able to convince an admin to accept a heartfelt appeal. However, if you do not do those things, it certainly will not happen. I note that 331dot seems mindful to increase your block length: you might wish to direct your thoughts to him. ——SerialNumber54129 13:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This block is completely unfair. Doesn't matter that Softlavender and Thomas.W also took part in tag team harassment just because they couldn't get their way either. --Ishmailer (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to reflect on your own conduct. I came across this debacle from NPP. If you continue casting ASPERSIONS on your talk page, your block is going to be increased and you will lose talk page access. You went around HOUNDING other editors, which is harassment - Arthur Johnsen and Herules. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) :It doesn't matter insofar as only you can control your own behavior, and you made a personal attack on ANI. In examining your edits in more detail, you've made some others along the way too. I'm starting to think that I was too lenient in giving you a week. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The insults were due to the pressure of being harassed by the same two editors. Note I never insulted them before today and one I have had dealings with since day one. I will accept a week ban. Any extension and I will appeal to a different admin. I will be watching not to throw insults about when I am unblocked. But those two really never had to touch the Liberland article given neither can hit the edit button and provide info for readers. One was unofficially "policing" it and the other jumped on the bandwagon. --Ishmailer (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Liberland. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Softlavender (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, do you mean I should not edit-war where you have (to this stage) twice reverted including illegitimate use of Rollback? --Ishmailer (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violating the WP:3RR bright-line rule. If your edits are contested and reverted, you must engage in discussion and seek consensus instead of edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Sorry. I really forgot there was a edit number limit. I absolutely PROMISE to stick to limits. Clearly I had to be away for a whole week. I will limit myself to one revert and you can use this as evidence that I am offering this as an act of good faith to the community.

Accept reason:

When I issued this block I was not aware that an ANI discussion was being raised. Usually, a blocked editor can make comments on their own talk page and someone will copy them to the ANI discussion. But in this case, as long as you stick to your promise to avoid editing that article while the ANI discussion is in progress, I see no need to maintain the block - and it would be easier if you could comment at ANI directly. I have, therefore, unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Ishmailer (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've inserted the block message above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware this is the first time I have appealed. I accepted old blocks in good faith. I accept this one has been done in good faith too but I truly feel I can demonstrate the will to edit without being disruptive. I won't touch Liberland - as a marker of acknowledgement to the ANI that has been reported on me. --Ishmailer (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR is not en entitlement, and you can still be blocked for violating WP:EW policy even without exceeding three reverts. When the changes you make to an article are reverted, you should stop, start a discussion (usually on the article talk page) and seek Consensus before you add them back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Boing! said Zebedee: . That is why I am proposing and even offering a 1-revert restriction in my case. To show I accept I did wrong, unforgivably, and also to show I have what it takes to be a model editor. --Ishmailer (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS I will steer clear of Liberland. Doesn't have to be imposed. That is just an offer I will observe. --Ishmailer (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: - sorry to be a pain. But I've been making remarks here which really belong on ANI. I can't properly defend myself here but in the end of the day because these comments are supposed to be posted on ANI. I truly ask that you unblock placing whatever conditions you like - because I may have a bigger block ahead of me and I need to represent myself an ANI. It is not fair only to listen to the prosecution but not the defence. --Ishmailer (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, the subject of an AN/I, if blocked, can have their comments copied over to the relevant thread. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: - Let it be known I agree to your proposal, I'll keep off Liberland-subjects and I will accept 0RR. So long as it is understood that this is for a lifting of my current block rather than me having to serve it out. BTW this cannot be taken as evidence for anything. That preceded the last block. We focus only on today's activities. Because there are skeletons in the closet with some of the other editors if we delve back that far. The last thing I want to be provoking from this predicament is BOOMERANG where one another editor is concerned. --Ishmailer (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked per the above conditions - you are free to comment at ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated accusations about socking

Ishmailer, your repeated accusations about me and Softlavender being one and the same, i.e. socking (samples: 1, 2;accusations that count as personal attacks, BTW, unless accompanied by solid evidence...) are becoming a bit boring. All really active editors here have a watchlist where all edits on watched articles immediately show up, and Liberland is currently watchlisted by 158 editors, so all edits on the article immediately show up in the watchlist of 158 people, including me, Softlavender and Mr rnddude. Which means it's totally impossible for you or anyone else to sneak in under the radar... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC) :@Thomas.W: Unless you are operating the other accounts as well. Don't try to pretend one man cannot operate several accounts, and as a dissimulation, having the "same article" on each of your watchlists is a no-brainer. There is no "solid evidence" for sockpuppetry, it is a process which operates on a basis called balance of probability, and my concern is more the timing. You know, having alternative accounts is greatly beneficial. If undetected, it allows for tag-teaming to bypass 3rr, or even 1rr per day for that matter. Log out and back in as Mr.X from Australia and Bob's your uncle. Use next door's Wi-Fi password and goodbye technical evidence, or better still, switch device and bury all traces of the same hands abusing Wikipedia. At least when I edit, you don't get the sudden emergence of other accounts to restore my version here and there. So obviously if I continue to witness what I've been seeing with you and the entourage who voted the same way as you did in the putsch at ANI then yes I'm afraid I will have to report the abuses. --Ishmailer (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ishmailer, you are way out of line here, and this continuing bad faith will not help at that ANI discussion. Softlavender and Thomas.W are *not* socks, they are genuinely two different people. So drop your unfounded accusations now - and if you wish to show good faith, you could apologize. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. @Ishmailer: I suggested above that you apologise for the sock accusations; you chose not to and sat out the block. Fair enough—that was your prerogative. But the ANI discussion is, honestly, not looking particularly favourable to you, notwithstanding your offers. I strongly urge you to not just publically withdraw the allegations against SL and TW but also to apologise. That might find you some good faith at ANI that I honestly think you need right now. ——SerialNumber54129 14:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Serial, I shouldn't worry. Brownfingers knows he has been owned yet again by the Bucksham Cooperative. The "private e-mailing" purely indicates that he has wet his pants once more. Very soon this account will be banned with tp access gone but fear not, there are literally hundreds of other untouchables created yonks back never to have hit the edit button! Your good efforts have been noted and I assure you that you'll never succumb to the penalty Brownfingers has to pay. --Ishmailer (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]