User talk:José Antonio Zapato

Hi José Antonio Zapato! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Lightbreather (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 20:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

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

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

To enforce community authorised sanctions, 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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).

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I reverted the same re-insertion of BLP violations several times, as I reported here. I believe removing BLP violations is exempt from edit warring restrictions - is that not the case? Either way, could someone please remove this last undo (which restored the BLP-violating content, e.g. a statement sourced to buzzfeed describing a BLPGROUP's finances as "murky") and protect the article? I would be satisfied with that alone if this block didn't prevent me from contributing to the BLPN discussion I began to address the continued re-insertion of this content.José Antonio Zapato (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I see the article has been protected with the content removed. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Regarding the block increase, I have absolutely not evaded my block.[reply]

Despite the existing block suggesting otherwise, I have never violated policy - all of my actions have been aboveboard. Should I expect my block to be extended for every edit from a sympathetic IP? The article history shows a number of anonymous and named editors making similar arguments and edits prior to my involvement in this article. I am blocked for the next 3 days, I suggest the blocking administrator take that time to reassess the situation before imposing additional penalties. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I really cannot see any basis for your claim that your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy because of serious BLP problems. As for the block extension, yes it could be another person who by a funny coincidence just happened to start editing just after you were blocked for the same edits, but it seems highly improbable, and we have to take decisions on the basis of what is most likely. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 20:36, 23 April 2015 (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.

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

• I did what I could.
  JamesBWatson, 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)[reply
  ]

To enforce community authorised sanctions, 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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).

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).

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

---

Request reason:

For a single revert to a single sentence to remove a BLP violation? And when it was reverted, rather than revert and begin an edit war I posted to BLPN instead... I'm really not even sure what to say. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC) José Antonio Zapato (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking administrator has now participated in an edit war to effectively hide my BLPN submission and break the multiple links I posted to that submission, including one I can't correct (due to his block) and another contained above. Had the reviewing administrator clicked it he would have found nothing. And he didn't think it was appropriate to inform me of any of this - another editor (below) did. Is this somehow personal? I had no interaction with this administrator prior to his blocks. - José Antonio Zapato (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're now blocked for sockpuppetry. I suggest you write a new unblock request which addresses this reason. PhilKnight (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Implying you or one of the other "usual suspects" wouldn't love the opportunity to decline it. Not here for your enjoyment, sorry bub. This account is done and that's cool, it was more a question of when than if. I'll be back in a bit with another dozen, same as the next guy and the next. We're not trying to "win" the way you define it, we're trying to waste your time (score!) and make wikipedia an increasingly unpleasant experience for y'all. How's that going?

What you don't seem to get is this is asymetric warfare, mostly in the sense that for you all every loss is significant (hai Dreadstar!) - for us "loss" is expected but we can afford it. Every little victory or nuisance makes it just that much less pleasant here, just that one fewer editor/admin - and bit by bit the ratchet clicks. Click click buddy :) Talk soon. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2015 (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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

Propose topic ban for this user as an unblock condition. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have little say in the "process". If I were to agree to Ohnoitsjamie'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@EmonyRanger: Thank you! José Antonio Zapato (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've reverted EmonyRanger at BLPN. The original discussion and your continuation are here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]