User talk:Cat Elevator

IP socking to edit war

I have blocked you one week for IP socking to edit war. You should stay logged in for any edit that you intend to make and do not edit as an anon. You may appeal your block by following the guide to appealing blocks.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter Which edit war are you accusing me of participating in? --Cat Elevator (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the edit of Yamina made several days before you chose to block me, it was an error - not IP socking.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I did not intentionally make an edit without being logged in, and the block was made four days after my edit. From now on, I'll check whether or not I'm logged in before I make an edit.

Accept reason:

See below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you link to it so that other admins may judge for themselves then I'll convert the checkuser block to a standard block. As it stands currently, this block may only be lifted by a checkuser.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link to edit war: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yamina_(political_alliance)&action=history --Cat Elevator (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Note: I performed only two reverts, so I didn't break the three-revert rule. --Cat Elevator (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the unintentional sock puppetry, my actions were not worse than the ones of David O. Johnson. I can now see that I managed to edit and then revert DOJ's edits two times, including the one mistakenly without being logged in. Yet, David O. Johnson made the same revert six times - so I don't understand why admins don't block User:David O. Johnson. --Cat Elevator (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted this block as I stated above so that other admins may unblock if satisfied that the block is no longer necessary.
There is WP:3RR which is the three revert rule generally timed within a 24 hour period. I don't see either you or David O. Johnson breaking that. Sometimes there is slower edit warring which is blockable as codified on that page, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Also further down in WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute." David O. Johnson has the advantage on you there because he followed BRD and tried to engage you on the talk page at Talk:Yamina (political alliance)#Yamina seats held on August 24 and you didn't respond.
To be clear, IP socking and then reverting where you have been having a slow edit war will be seen as socking unless you either revert yourself or otherwise make it known that the IP edit is yours. Otherwise, it has the appearance of avoiding scrutiny.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Again - did you block me for IP socking (which I did by mistake) or for edit warring? If the latter is the case, David O. Johnson didn't tag me (or any of the other editors against his point of view) in the discussion, and he reverted twice as many edits as me including the ones made by other editors.--Cat Elevator (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1. "IP socking to edit war" is in the block log and that means both. It doesn't matter whether you were warned by him in this case because it has nothing to do with his actions. I saw where you had done this and blocked.
  - 2. WP:NOTTHEM
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Elevator: I'm inclined to grant this unblock request, provided that Berean Hunter doesn't object, on the condition that you agree to use only this account to edit – that means no IPs or other accounts – for an indefinite period. ~~Any administrator may lift or make exceptions to this restriction.~~ Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I can agree to most of that since we are on the same page as I wrote above, "You should stay logged in for any edit that you intend to make and do not edit as an anon." I agree with that restriction but disagree with "Any administrator may lift or make exceptions to this restriction" especially since there is a consensus of two admins so far that this should be in place and because if it were lifted and Cat Elevator got into another precarious position and claimed it was an accident then I would be reluctant to downgrade from a checkuser block. Making a clear line of demarcation is advantageous to both Cat Elevator and any admin in a future situation. When I stated that in my first comment, I intended that to be the way of it from now on whether he was unblocked or not.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. Cat Elevator, once you confirm, I or another administrator will unblock. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm. L235, Berean Hunter --Cat Elevator (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Elevator, for future reference pings such as this do not work unless you have a signature with the current timestamp in the same edit. It would have worked if you would have deleted your signature and made a new one. I saw this anyway and have unblocked. If you plan to edit the same article, remember to engage in discussion at Talk:Yamina (political alliance)#Yamina seats held.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste moves

Hello. Please do not move articles by copying text from one location and pasting it in another. If you want to move an article, you must either use the move tab at the top of the article, or if this does not work (because the target is blocked), you should use the WP:RM process. This is to ensure that article histories are retained. I have cleaned up the mess you made of the People's Party move and moved it in the correct way. Thanks, Number 5 7 20:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you for your help! --Cat Elevator (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Centre Party

Could you see if the edit I made is an acceptable compromise? Thanks! Ezhao02 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems accurate - good idea --Cat Elevator (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! In the future, it might be helpful to ping users when you're responding to them but not on their talk pages using {{ping|USER_NAME_HERE}}. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]