User talk:José Antonio Zapato

I have filed a case at ANI re: Not That Kind of Girl
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

ANI notice
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!
Thank you! José Antonio Zapato (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Men's Rights Movements article probation notification
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you.'' -- PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Block per WP:MRMPS
To enforce, and for edit warring on the page A Voice for Men, as described at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, you have been blocked from editing for 48 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).


 * I've increased your block by 24 hours for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I did what I could., I think blocked editors could benefit from more detailed reasoning in your decline responses. Long term, blocks can be only as preventative as they are instructional, and I am no closer now to understanding why my removal of BLP material was not exempt than I was before. I do understand (and reluctantly agree with) your rationale re: the IP's contributions. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Second block per WP:MRMPS
To enforce, and for your resumption of edit warring after expiration of your last block on the page A Voice for Men, as described at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, you have been blocked from editing for one week. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).


 * It's not a single revert. It's a continuation of your previous edit war. Going to BLPN, going to the Talk page; none of that justifies the battle. You're tackling this issue with a single-mindedness that is disruptive and not conducive to improving the article or to benefiting the project. And I see no sign that you will let go of this until and if the material reads the way you think it should read.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're just being silly. To suggest that the above removal of 8 words is a continuation of an edit war over this (3,821)‎ byte removal that doesn't even contain the words I removed is almost incredible. Both your previous block and your current block came shortly after I submitted filings on the BLPN board. Whether intended or not the effect in both cases was to prevent me from contributing to BLPN discussions I had begun. That's a disingenuous use of tools. Especially in this most recent case where the block came after it was clear I would not revert more than the single time, opting instead to post to BLPN, I don't see how you can argue this block is preventative. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness. I've just seen that you "warned" the editor who reverted me not to engage in edit wars. He and I previously edit warred over his inclusion of material that arguably violates BLP, You blocked me for that but did not sanction him. Now he and I have "warred" again, I with a single revert, he with two - and his was to include this obvious BLP violation. And for that you decide he should be warned and I should be blocked? I am almost speechless. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You commented reasonably above. I'd appreciate any input/advice on this current block. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose topic ban for this user as an unblock condition. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your attention. I don't know how these "negotiations" work. If I have a say in the process I would not accept this as an unblock condition. I would rather the standard process proceed. I have no objection to the strict scrutiny apparently now applied to all my edits in this topic area. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have little say in the "process". If I were to agree to 's proposal, the wording and the duration of the ban would have to be hammered out. At a minimum, you would not be able to edit the article or the Talk page for an extended period of time. Given your attitude, I doubt that will sit well with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it best I not respond. My request that an uninvolved administrator review this block stands. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Links to most recent BLPN Discussion
FYI: The section link of your recent BLPN discussion has changed. Here is the new link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#A_Voice_for_Men_II EmonyRanger (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you! José Antonio Zapato (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've reverted at BLPN. The original discussion and your continuation are here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)