User talk:Robepang

November 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. PeterRang (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2021 (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:Robepang reported by User:Canzeelia (Result: ). Thank you. Canzeelia (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}.

You have continued to edit war at Milo dinosaur after being advised at WP:AN3 to be careful. We administrators see lots of nationalist edit wars about food items and we aren't very sympathetic. Especially when you incorrectly charge your opponent with vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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 ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Daniel Case: Hi, it is not clear what's happening here. With all due respect, I'm not the only one who reverted the unknown IP's edits, you can see other users too like [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. I could not blame them, these are typically INTSF sock’s edits.

I believe all of these are related to [[5]], a known sockpuppet master who seems to be engaging in some weird long-term sockpuppetry.

All INTSF accounts have been blocked, for example [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], including the editor who reported me last time in order to create an illusion of support [[9]]

@Chipmunkdavis: Hi, let me know you thought, I believe these are INTSF edits [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]] Robepang (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So they are, classic ducks. CMD (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done a bit more digging. Robepang, I encourage you again to bring your suspicions to SPI. @Daniel Case:, this falls under WP:3RRNO#3. Best, CMD (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I didn't block for a 3RR violation. I blocked because I saw a pattern of reverting across multiple articles by an editor who'd been blocked for edit warring a couple of months ago and had been reported to AIV.

I would be comfortable unblocking only if the user who made the report weighed in here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I initially came across their edit via recent changes, thinking it was some run-of-the-mill disruptive edit-warring when I reported it to AIV. Based on this new information, I'm not objecting having them unblocked, I'm not involved in their edits anyway. Razali Osman (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]