User talk:Smith0124

Hello Smith0124! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! StonyBrook (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its a talk page, stop reading this and go talk! Yeah, I'm talking to you! Stop reading the TALK page!

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: I'm sorry. I really am. There's no justifying it. But Darryl and I need to have equal punishment, the longer block for sure. This is both of our fault, though Darryl was the one jumping the gun and implementing his/her edits before the Rfc on the matter was closed. We both should be banned for 2 weeks, if not longer, and banned for the same amount of time. The whole argument stemmed from Darryl believing that a previous Rfc said that candidates should go on the infoboxes if they reached 5%, but it never mentioned withdrawn candidates, and the standard has been not to include them. So after some argument I started an Rfc and Darryl kept vandalizing and edit warring, even trying to close the Rfc despite having a clear bias and participating in it themself. As for my past, I've tried really hard not to edit war and it's been months since my last issue, I've been very collaborative and I was just protecting the rules when Darryl went beyond the discussion. We were both equally at fault and we should both get the same punishment. Smith0124 (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out at ANI, your block is longer because this is your fifth(!) block for edit warring since January of this year. Maybe don't do that. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Pro tip: you clearly understand what you've done wrong. Just take your punishment and learn from it. You'll never be sanctioned for being wrong; you'll almost always be sanctioned for edit warring. People around here really don't want to hear excuses. Pro tip #2: if you are getting two week sanctions 7 months into your time here the next one will be indefinite. It's time to stop. Just back away, request assistance when you get into trouble and do not edit war. You're not a troll or a vandal. Just be calmer, and use process. That's why it's there. If you need help with process, just stop and ask. Other editors, at the Teahouse or at an admins talk page. Just resist the temptation to revert and discuss. Rhetoric wins the day here. John from Idegon (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Assistance was requested numerous times on ANI and nobody helped beyond brief comments. No administrator stepped in to tell Darryl that he/she was breaking the rules and of course Darryl wasn't listening to me. It was my fault for edit warring but this was totally avoidable had an administrator stepped in to enforce Wikipedia's rules so I didn't have to do it myself. Rhetoric didn't work here, we argued again and again for days until finally Darryl became impatient and went against the rules to reinstate his/her edits. I'm taking my punishment and not challenging it as I said but Darryl needs to be blocked from those pages and Talk: 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries for as long as me otherwise he/she will just go back to breaking the rules. Smith0124 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@M Imtiaz: I haven't been blocked in months. And the last block I received was me combatting sockpuppetry and I took the hit anyway. Despite that, I've really improved since then, I've been very collaborative on talk pages, I've done everything in my power not to edit war and that reflects in the months long gap. I did that even in this incident, but Darryl went beyond the discussion and consistently broke the rules. I understand that I was in the wrong to edit war, but I took all measures to try and prevent it. It's unfair for me to get the longer punishment, this whole thing was dragged on for days by Darryl despite my repeated attempts to deescalate. I accept my punishment but the second Darryl is unblocked he/she is going to continue to edit war because I'll still be blocked. According to Wikipedia rules, the edits stay the initial way (my way in this case), and the Rfc is still ongoing. Darryl also broke Wikipedia rules by trying to close the Rfc on his/her own, when Darryl had a clear bias and participated in the Rfc. If he/she is unblocked before me he/she will revert back to his/her edits and unjustly close the Rfc, both of which are against the rules. At the very least Darryl needs to be banned from those pages and Talk: 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries for the two weeks. Smith0124 (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Smith, you haven't got kids. Someone else doing wrong in no way mitigates you doing wrong. So why are you wasting time telling people about other's misdeeds here? All they want to hear is an admission of guilt, and a plan for how to avoid making the same mistakes again. Anything else hurts your chances at getting unblocked, as making excuses is a sign of immaturity and we really like our editors to work together. Do us all a favor and stop. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: I already admitted my guilt and I want to maie it clear that I accept the responsibility and punishment for my actions. I'm just telling you that every possible option failed and that if Darryl doesn't receive equal treatment he/she will just go back to breaking the rules. My problem isn't about me; I know I did wrong and that my punishment is fair, I'm just warning that Darryl will go right back to breaking the rules because of his/her lighter punishment. That's why he/she needs to be banned from those pages in particular for the same amount of time as me. Smith0124 (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)And Pro tip #3: when you are in Dutch for not following the rules, do not insist that your understanding of the rules matters as applied to others. You'll have much more credence when your actions indicate you understand the rules. And rules are, after all, pretty optional around here. The only rules that apply full time and are not really subject to individual interpretations are ones based in law (WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:LIBEL, WP:CHILD). Having a reputation as a Wiki-lawyer is not a good thing. Even if you're good at it like me. And even though I have roughly 12 times the experience you do, you may be suprised to find out there's more for me to learn about the rules here (and especially how they are applied). So to sum up:

Don't discuss the actions of others when you are the one who is blocked.

Your actions (this applies in RL too) are never mitigated by the actions of others. Be responsible for yourself and let the community deal with the others.

No matter the reason, do not edit war. After two blocks in the last year for edit warring, I learned that the hard way. And I'm a familiar name for almost all the admins, and have a good track record here, and still got blocked twice. You're a relative noob and frankly have a terrible track record. If you do it again, you're likely done. Just let go of yourself...winning isn't important, consensus is. As I said earlier, you are not a troll or a vandal. Your voice is needed in discussions here. But the edit warring has to stop, now, or tomorrow isn't going to come. Please take this for what it is: advice on survival here. If you don't listen to it, that's your business, but I have seen enough around here to be certain that continuing on your present course will only shipwreck you. John from Idegon (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Thank you for talking with me. I’m glad that someone cares. The rules Darryl breaks are pretty straightforward, they aren’t the types of rules that are up for interpretation. I wish there were a necessary evil clause of the rules, because as I said I tried every possible thing to deescalate and find common ground. I accept responsibility and guilt but feel failed by the system. Calls for help were largely ignored and Darryl refused to discuss without personally attacking me and without edit warring and breaking other rules. That’s why he/she needs to not be able to break those same rules again. Smith0124 (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]