User talk:OnceASpy

June 2018

Your recent editing history at Dori Monson 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. NZFC^(talk) 23:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you need to get consensus, and preferably provide a reliable source, before you make this edit again. Doing what you're doing is contrary to your own self-interest. It's an ineffectual way of getting changes made, but an excellent way to get the current version locked down. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. OnceASpy (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Your recent editing history at Dori Monson 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.
You don't WP:OWN the article. Discuss on talk page. You reverted valid changes. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 00:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Anti-Communist Action 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. Grayfell (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm NZFC. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Dori Monson, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles and content relating to recently deceased or living persons

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in . Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 18:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Antifa (United States). 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. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for reverting you, but as I said, it seems like you are relying on your own original research to change the previous version. I may be wrong! Can you show me a source for the phrasing you prefer? I would appreciate it. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 00:20, 21 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:OnceASpy reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: ). Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Antifa (United States). 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 ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 ~~~~}}.

Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

legit not me. I only have one account. Can't you check the IP of this stuff? Whoever it was either agrees with my edit, or is purposefully trying to get me blocked by impersonating me. OnceASpy (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Joe-jobbed. See below. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a little patience while this is looked into. Admins, please hold. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "other guy" admitted to being him, so, unless there is evidence that he was framed, I don't see this going anywhere. Assuming that this is as it appears to be then I would suggest upping the block to indef. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a famous line, checkusers usually know something you don't. Please all be patient. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after seeing what the "other guy" posted, it's pretty clear I'm being impersonated. Which is both kinda funny and a little disconcerting, considering the political nature of the page in question. OnceASpy (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it pretty obvious that I'm being impersonated in an attempt to get my account blocked. I actually gained consensus on my edit after I was blocked, and had no problem waiting the 24 hours to re-contribute to the talk page and resolve the issue. This is a politically-motivated attempt to shut my account down. Either that or a really weird and sad troll who should get a more productive hobby. OnceASpy (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK OnceASpy, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you were joe-jobbed by Architect 134 (this falls into the latter of your categories), and I strongly recommend to Sir Sputnik that the block evasion block is nullified with a summary clearly stating mistaken identity. The bad news is that your original edit-warring block @TonyBallioni: is likely to stand. In any case it is now a separate matter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies. I had no reason to think you were being impersonated, but here we are. I've reverted the block settings to what they were previously as recommended. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder

Please watch your edit warring/3RR edits. It seems to me that when that is happening, often it's because the weight of consensus is elsewhere. Just food for thought. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're now at 5RR. I would respectfully ask that you self-undo your last edit. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Antifa (United States). 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. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for a month. You've kept on making baseless accusations against other editors who've had the temerity to disagree with you. This is the third block in less than a month. If this behavior resumes after the block expires the next is likely to be indefinite - I considered that in this case, but would prefer that you rethink your approach to editing Wikipedia and most especially your attitude toward other editors. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't break any rules or even make an edit. I mentioned a conflict of interest in a talk page and was "punished" for daring to point it out. OnceASpy (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block looks completely justified. Calling other editors names is just a bad idea, period. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:35, 13 November 2018 (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.

Reviewing admin: this [1] accusation, followed by this response [2] [3] to my warning, then this [4], and finally this reiteration [5] that everybody disagreeing with OnceASpy must have a COI because they're a bunch of communists. Acroterion (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not "everybody who disagrees with me is a communist". It was that there were conflicts of interest because admitted communists (a subject of the article in question) were violating NPOV on the page. I'm not the only user who was worried about NPOV and how sloppy the article is. (OnceASpy (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Who are the admitted communists? Doug Weller talk 09:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent editor on the page, for instance. (OnceASpy (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]