User talk:Dympies

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:Dympies reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: ). Thank you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (2019 Balakot airstrike) 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I hadn't broken the three revert rule. There had been three reverts from my sides involving two different users. I had already initiated a talk page discussion much prior to the third revert. As per WP:BRD, the users are supposed to engage on talk page, which I was already doing. What made me bold here were my valid arguments to which opposers were yet to present any counter-arguments at talk page. The report seems flawed to me. Also the decision of blocking me seems to have been taken in a hurry. Within half an hour of being reported, I was blocked for a harsh period of 14 days. Enough time wasn't given to me to clarify the things. I promise that I will handle the things with more patience in future and will avoid edit warring in any case. Dympies (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not blocked specifically for violating 3RR, you are blocked for edit warring- which can involve fewer reverts than 3 as policy makes clear. Your chance to clarify things is now- there is no requirement to wait for an unspecified period of time before blocking. Note that you are only blocked from the article itself, you are not blocked from its talk page or any other page or article on Wikipedia. You don't say here why you need access to the article itself right now, today, that can't be dealt with on the talk page first. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

331dot, I have no issue with restriction on editing that particular page for 2 weeks but I am concerned about the stigma which this block brings to my 4.5 year old account. I still can't understand how I was at fault. WP:BRD asks us to be bold in making constructive edits so as to attain a peaceful solution. Why were my edits considered disruptive when the situation hadn't deteriorated much? I accept that I edit warred but my edits were backed by edit summaries and talk page remarks which were convincing enough to justify them. Please check this latest edit on that page [1] by Fowler&fowler. He himself has now changed the wording of content (initially contested by me) which validates that my point was somewhat genuine.

I don't want to be bullied like this in future. The filer of report may report me again and call me a "repeat offender" citing this action against me. Why should I let a black mark be put on my editing record when I am not at fault? Dympies (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are unjustly harassed by another user, action can be taken at WP:ANI. If you don't edit war, you have nothing to worry about. If your behavior changes, the community will see that. We can't wipe away the record of the block as if it never existed(though you are welcome to remove the block notice and even this discussion from this page, as you are not sitewide blocked). 331dot (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response, 331dot. But my concern remains unanswered. Who will tell me how I was at fault? My fault was never discussed as such. Or should I consider that reports always get users banned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Dympies (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Reports do not always get users blocked. You don't have to be at fault for the edit war to be sanctioned for edit warring. Only you can control your actions. That said, the editor who made the report said they might have let your first reverts slide if you hadn't made the last one. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Since you cite BRD above: the essay recommends BRD, not B-R-R-R-D-R, which is what you did. And that is disruptive. You acknowledge as much; on what basis do you insist you weren't at fault? Why did you need to make that last revert? If you believe I'm harassing you feel free to raise the matter at the administrator noticeboard: but I'm afraid you don't have much of a case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I am well aware how seriously reports against admins are taken at ANI. So, I won't waste my time there. But I remember you engaged in an argument over the same content with my alternate account previously. So, I can understand your involvement here. Proper discussion was my demand back then but you insisted on long standing version. And now when I exposed the so-called "most reliable journal", efforts are being made to knock me out. Dympies (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

None of that has anything to do with your edit-warring or my supposed bullying. I don't even recall what your previous avatar was: you have no alternative accounts declared on your userpage. Regardless, if you have a complaint about me you know where to take it. I'm stepping away from this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request : 7 December 2024

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I am requesting unblock because I am no longer interested in the dispute after realizing my mistakes.

1) It was wrong for me to edit war at all. The right course of action for me was to discuss right after I made my first controversial edit here.

2) My edit was itself problematic because I wrongly believed that the news headline on the basis of which I was contesting some content (in lead) was undisputed; however, later I realized that it was published in the Indian media only and hence, won't be considered very reliable.

That said, I am no longer going to resume this dispute and as such I also feel that the block is no longer WP:PREVENTATIVE. Dympies (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am requesting unblock because I am no longer interested in the dispute after realizing my mistakes. 1) It was wrong for me to edit war at all. The right course of action for me was to discuss right after I made my first controversial edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Balakot_airstrike&diff=prev&oldid=1260577681 here]. 2) My edit was itself problematic because I wrongly believed that the news headline on the basis of which I was contesting some content (in lead) was undisputed; however, later I realized that it was published in the Indian media only and hence, won't be considered very reliable. That said, I am no longer going to resume this dispute and as such I also feel that the block is no longer [[WP:PREVENTATIVE]]. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies#top|talk]]) 02:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am requesting unblock because I am no longer interested in the dispute after realizing my mistakes. 1) It was wrong for me to edit war at all. The right course of action for me was to discuss right after I made my first controversial edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Balakot_airstrike&diff=prev&oldid=1260577681 here]. 2) My edit was itself problematic because I wrongly believed that the news headline on the basis of which I was contesting some content (in lead) was undisputed; however, later I realized that it was published in the Indian media only and hence, won't be considered very reliable. That said, I am no longer going to resume this dispute and as such I also feel that the block is no longer [[WP:PREVENTATIVE]]. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies#top|talk]]) 02:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am requesting unblock because I am no longer interested in the dispute after realizing my mistakes. 1) It was wrong for me to edit war at all. The right course of action for me was to discuss right after I made my first controversial edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Balakot_airstrike&diff=prev&oldid=1260577681 here]. 2) My edit was itself problematic because I wrongly believed that the news headline on the basis of which I was contesting some content (in lead) was undisputed; however, later I realized that it was published in the Indian media only and hence, won't be considered very reliable. That said, I am no longer going to resume this dispute and as such I also feel that the block is no longer [[WP:PREVENTATIVE]]. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies#top|talk]]) 02:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}