User talk:Nimchimpski

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 shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 the 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.

Crossroads ^-talk- 05:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Your recent editing history at Jessica Cantlon 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Celeste Kidd 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that these articles are being discussed at the BLP Noticeboards. That's how I learned about this editing dispute. Please discuss your edits there.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Nimchimpski (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nimchimpski. 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.

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) 17:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

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).

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

Request reason:

This is not a sock puppet account. I was editing the case about Rochester because I have followed it closely in the media (there have been oodles of stories and I know the field). Some of my wording did borrow from others who were also editing, but this is allowed. My edits were also specifically to fix defamatory information on a page that were found to have BLP violations, so my edits were in good faith and were an attempt to address this issue. I would like to request CheckUser.

Decline reason:

I can tell you right away that it will be denied. We almost never run checkuser to prove a blockee's innocence, because, really, it can't. Anyone skilled enough in using the Internet can create the illusion that two separate people exist; there is simply no way to prove that there really are two separate people (whereas it's much easier to make a strong case that two accounts are being operated by the same person). If you really think there can be, square the circle first and then maybe we might be impressed enough to listen.

In any event, the SPI also raised the possibility of meatpuppetry, which your request does very little to dispel, and which would if true make your checkuser request moot. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2022 (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.

haha

Puppet 174.192.6.133 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC) 174.192.6.133 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]