User talk:Grossmisconduct

April 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, the burden is on you to establish consensus. Do not edit war. Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Grayfell, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to discuss the issue, but Grayfell keeps deleting my comments on his/her Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grossmisconduct (talk • contribs) 01:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss this is the article's talk page. Since I noticed that you had previously deleted comments on your own talk page, I mistakenly assumed you understood how this works. If you delete comments from your own talk page, it is understood to mean you have read them. Review WP:TPG. Until you understand how to collaborate, do not post on my talk page, and do not restore comments which have been deleted. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing debate or discussion. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not selectively send notices only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you, as you did here. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. --JBL (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alerts, please read

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Unplanned, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Motocrossed, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Shouldn't be blocked because I wrote the media release formats of a movie. Almost every film or show has such a section, such as Friends, Avengers:Endgame, and Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) to name a few. Grossmisconduct (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your persistence in edit warring to keep your edit there suggests that you are here to promote Disney Plus and not build an encyclopedia. To be unblocked, you will need to demonstrate that you understand policy on edit warring and the proper way to resolve an editing dispute. I must decline your request. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

2 of my 3 examples also had Disney+ listed as a streaming source. I have mentioned Disney+ once in my entire 10-year editing history, which was for this article, so I am not promoting this service. I do understand edit warring, as I did not break the 3RR rule.

Decline reason:

As you admittedly don't understand WP:EW and seem to think it only applies if you violate WP:3RR (which is incorrect), there are no grounds to consider lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

For decades 3RR has been considered the bright line. The reason given for the block was promoting a streaming service, not edit warring, which I do not understand, as I only mentioned Disney+ once in 10 years.

Decline reason:

The reason for the block is that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. That seems borne out by your recent edits, which promote streaming services, edit war over social and political issues, and argue on talk pages about political topics. To be unblocked, please tell us what topics you wish to edit and how you will edit them. It would also probably help if you gave us an example of encyclopedic content that you would like to add, including a citation to a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2019 (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.

3RR is a bright line, but it is still possible to edit war with fewer reverts; you are not entitled to 3 reverts. Please review the edit warring policy carefully. Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been building an encyclopedia for over 11 years. I usually only login with my account when there is protection involved or if I'm at home. I can't possibly list the thousands of edits and hundreds of subjects I've contributed to. Why is streaming services mentioned as a "promotion?" I've noted streaming services on just one article in 11 years, which is in line with almost every other movie article on Wikipedia which lists its streaming availability. So I am only being allowed to edit if the subject matter meets with approval ahead of time. Isn't that censorship?

Decline reason:

I have looked through your editing history. I have seen persistent editing to promote a point of view, edit-warring on several articles (including in some cases slow persistent edit-warring over a very long time), canvassing to try to get support for your point of view, persistent refusal to accept consensus when you happen to disagree with it, harassing of another editor by repeatedly posting the same message to their talk page over and over again after it had been seen by that editor, and so on and so on... In short, your editing has been disruptive in many ways, and I can only endorse the blocking administrator's decision. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 12:51, 18 December 2019 (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.

Although you have been here for 11+ years, you have only 111 edits. A surprising number of these have been controversial and have resulted in warnings on your talk page. Regarding this particular incident, you were warned at 03:20, 15 November 2019 about your promotional editing, but persisted to edit war instead of stepping back. Sorry but I do not have much confidence that you would edit constructively if unblocked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

It is not promotional editing to list the streaming source of a movie article if almost every movie article has a streaming source.

Decline reason:

Only one open unblock request at a time, please. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:15, 10 December 2019 (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.

Grossmisconduct (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]