User talk:Mithrandir the Grey

Mithrandir the Grey, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mithrandir the Grey! 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 experienced editors like Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Gandalf

Please discuss your proposed changes in the talk page. -- Elphion (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Elphion: Please explain your reverts, and then we can discuss them at the talk page. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gandalf shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GimliDotNet (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you only once, and included a brief explanation in the edit summary (as did Gimli in most of his reverts). I've since added a longer explanation on the talk page. Ordinarily editors advocating changes that have been reverted are expected to discuss them on the talk page (see WP:BRD). Since you're not a new editor, I assume you know this. -- Elphion (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Mithrandir_the_Grey reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: ). Thank you. GimliDotNet (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GimliDotNet: Thanks for the notice; I've responded now. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Gandalf

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation (August 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Catrìona was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Catrìona (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come clean

I'm saying this as an editor who agrees with your points and thinks you are helpful to the community -- you should come clean. I know Onceinawhile's case is unconfirmed but it looks to me, someone who has a positive opinion of you, that it's like 95% likely to be true you're a sock. If that's true, you should come clean, and tell administrators you would like to contribute positively, within the bounds of the rules. I will vouch for you, I have seen you suggesting positive compromises on talk pages and would like you to be able to edit. I cant' guarantee they will let you -- they will also have to take a line of consistency with other such cases. But at the same time, I don't think you'll last long if you don't. If you're not a sock and this is all coincidence, then please accept my deepest apologies (I think there's like a 5-10% chance of this). --Calthinus (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: Thank you very much for your regards, but the only two entities I've ever edited with are my IP and this account.

I'm happy to read that you think I'm contributing positively. Your timing could actually not have been less perfect; I just added an extended-confirmed-protected edit request to Talk:Israel, and I'd very much appreciate if you could take a look at it. [1] Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're expecting me to add that myself, I'm going to have to pass. Looks like something that could be controversial. The nitpicky details of legal~judicial functions typically bore me and I've never once paid attention when I was supposed to learn about them. I'd rather defer to others on that one.--Calthinus (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: I see. Still, thanks for the sympathy! Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make any edits

@Bbb23: As you know, there are users who keep reverting my edits because you still haven't closed the SPI against me. Since I don't want to get involved in another edit war, I've refrained from making any article (and/or article's talk page) edits during the past few days. But it's really annoying having to wait this long. If you know when the SPI will be closed, please tell me. Otherwise, I'll start making edits again, and I hope you'll realise that the users who revert them are the ones engaging in edit wars. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know when the SPI will be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

@Ynhockey: So, apparently, I was blocked by someone (who was totally uninvolved in the case) without evidence, just because I asked why the SPI was taking so long... [2] Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2018 (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.

That's very funny. First, you complained constantly that the SPI needed to be closed becuse of the supposed negative impact on your editing. Now the SPI has been closed, and you're saying it happened only because you complained? Actually, it probably didn't happen because of your complaint. SPIs often linger after uncertain CU results before someone makes a behavioral decision. And this "totally uninvolved" administrator who made the decision is an SPI clerk. That's his job.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: He didn't appear in the discussion until just now. And he based his decision on that I "complained too much" rather than any new evidence. Seriously, you had 9 days, and you never found any conclusive evidence. So why am I blocked???

As I said when I closed the SPI (before I responded to the request at ANRFC) I blocked you because you're obviously a sockpuppet of Willschmut, not because of any discussion I didn't participate in. Interested admins can email me per WP:BEANS. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: And you're a member of the deep state. How do I know? It just feels so obvious. Please, explain why it was obvious to you in a few seconds when it took more than a week for everyone else, and they're still not sure. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked for personal attacks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]