User talk:Gristleking

April 2019
(talk Please clarify. What precipitated this block on my account? I am a new member however I have done my best to follow the rules and also registered properly. I have just added to a complaint about another user. I am hoping that this is not the reason for my block. Gristleking (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not. Follow the instructions above if you wish to appeal your block.  General Ization  Talk  14:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) On the contrary, you are not a new member. Your original account has been around for almost six years. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

DoRDThis is troubling. I opened my account just a few days ago. Gristleking (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, you opened this account a few days ago. You also opened yesterday. You do realize that using multiple accounts with the intention of appearing as multiple people is against the rules, don't you? —DoRD (talk)​ 14:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

DoRD I hope sharing an internet connection with my boyfriend is not a violation of any Wikipedia policies. I registered my email this morning I am just asking how I have violated policy to warrant a block? I think I had a legitimate complaint about an editor and I thought I used the right method to say something. I was blocked as soon as I posted the complaint. Gristleking (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC) DoRD In addition there are four adults living in this home - it is a duplex. We all share a wireless connection. I have done nothing abusive. As far as I know the worst I have done is revert two edits in one night from another user. I then listened to the admin who warned me. And today I added to a complaint about that other editor Gristleking (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if you are multiple people, you are still in violation of Policy for supporting each other's edits. I have not blocked your main account, but you are certainly free to appeal these two blocks per the instructions in the message above. P.S. It's not safe or wise to post private contact info anywhere on Wikipedia. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand your statement. When you say have not blocked "your main account" you are referring to another account in this duplex. I am going to appeal my own block on this account. Thank you for explaining your reasons.


 * In the interest of transparency, I will mention that I am not an "admin" (as Wikipedia defines the role), nor have ever claimed to be; I am only a rollbacker, and indeed a longer-term user who attempted to explain to the editor our policies concerning edit warring and personal attacks. (Also here.)  General Ization  Talk  15:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, for clarity, the editor received a warning for 3 reverts at Chicago in a 24 hour period, , , despite the fact they claim only two.  General Ization Talk  16:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying- you operated with the authority of an administrator so I thought you were. I am pretty sure I only made two reverts (reverting the reverts) then I stopped and moved on. Gristleking (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * General Ization is me creating content - not reverting. Please do not accuse me of doing something I did not. Gristleking (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll grant you that (that the first diff was actually your introduction of the challenged content, not a revert). For some reason, I thought the introduction had occurred in an earlier edit. Nevertheless, please note that it is entirely possible to edit war without having reverted three times (or been allowed to), and it was clear to me that you displayed no intention of following the BRD procedure despite its having had been explained to you (several times) without intervention in the form of a clear warning (which any Wikipedia editor has the "authority" to issue – not just admins).  General Ization Talk  18:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the fact (which I suspect you'll be quick to point out) that the other editor also had reverted twice at that point, the difference is that the other editor had Wikipedia policy (the policy on consensus, and the BRD procedure that upholds it) on their side. Reverts that enforce well-established Wikipedia policies, and that return an article to its consensus version pending the development of a new consensus (by way of Talk page discussion), are not generally considered violations of the edit warring policy.  Persistent reversion that defies the current consensus is.  General Ization  Talk  18:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)