User talk:Sgphawker

Welcome!

Hello, Sgphawker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Indonesian language did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Austronesier (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hi Sgphawker! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Indonesian language several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Indonesian language, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Austronesier (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indonesian language. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Austronesier (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Obviously I'm not the one who started the edit war, my contributuons can be verified and rely on reliable sources. Read WP:RELY. (Sgphawker (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2022 (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:Sgphawker reported by User:Austronesier (Result: ). Thank you. Austronesier (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Indonesian language) for a period of 1 month because of disruptive editing, edit warring in that area. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions again.

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

@Black Kite: How my contribution considered as "edit warring" when all I did is giving contribution to expand the article by citing information based on reliable sources (WP:RELY) that can be verified? (WP:VERIFY), per WP:EDITWAR my contributions aren't considered as edit war. Please review whose the one making a mess in Indonesian language article. Please break down and elaborate what's wrong. Did you think the vandalism performed by User:Davidelit: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and User:Austronesier: [7], [8] are considered as constructive and useful contributions? Sgphawker (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were quite precisely edit warring; regardless of the propriety of your edits, once they have been disagreed with, you must -- absolutely must -- discuss them on the article talk page, rather than simply making those edits over and over again. The things you are calling vandalism are not WP:VANDALISM, they are content disagreements. Unjustifiably referring to other editors as vandals constitutes a personal attack, and I suggest you desist from that. You are free to edit anywhere else on Wikipedia; I suggest the article talk page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: But Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. This is a motto applied to all Wikimedia Foundation projects: use them for any purpose as you wish (per WP:FREECONTENT) as long as editors could provide the citations to reliable sources (per WP:RELY), why I couldn't perform my contribution and get deleted multiple times without any clear reasons? like my contributions can be verified, you can go one by one in detail and could see my contribution is constructive, what do you mean by "disagreement" when Wikipedia is free content? why it feels like owned by some particular individuals? (see WP:OWNERSHIP) why would my contributions considered as "edit warring" when the one who make a mess is the other user? (User:Davidelit: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and User:Austronesier: [15], [16]) why didn't you take any action to the other user? why I was blocked immediately without trying to take a consideration on how and what exactly my good intention is. And anyways, I assumed those users as vandals because they removed all verifiable informations including all the reliable sources, you can read WP:VANDAL. Why people didn't really follow any Wikipedia guides and policy? I demand explanation, not "ehhh I think.. ehhh that's quite it... but not sure..." response. (Sgphawker (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2022 (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.

June 2022

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, I found a whole bunch of accounts, some of which started during this block. I'll list them below. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sgphawker. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charming. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]