Jamarr81
March 2015
editWelcome!
edit
Hello, Jamarr81, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to do lots more. Some useful pages to visit are:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
- The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)
You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
If you need any help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. We're so glad you're here! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
edit
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Though the template above says that there's no implication that there's anything wrong with your editing, I do think your approach has some issues, and I've given you a couple templated notices below which I hope you'll read. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
February 2024
edit
Hello, I'm Firefangledfeathers. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Calling good-faith edits "vandalism" is personal attack. See WP:NORESVAND. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jamarr81! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article 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, 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. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Your most recent revert on Masculism violated the three-revert rule; could you self-revert it so we can talk about your proposed changes on talk? --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
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:Jamarr81 reported by User:Aquillion (Result: ). Thank you. Aquillion (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
February 2024
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)- Please note that vandalism has a specific definition on Wikipedia and the edits that you have described as vandalism in your edit summaries are not vandalism, but rather constitute a content dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Jamarr81 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was wrongly blocked for reverting malicious reverts to the Masculism page. This page is poorly written, poorly organized, and displays clear bias/stigmatism against contemporary, positive representations of Masculism (as a male counter-balance of feminism). My good-faith efforts to improve the page organization and to minimize the ambiguities and histories of terms on this page began with this edit:
The User:Aquillion maliciously reverted the first subset of my changes here, assuming that these were bad-faith edits (they were not):
I restored my edits with a reversion so that I could continue making the next subset of changes to improve the page here progressively:
I also started a new topic/conversation on the Talk page to figure out exactly why my good-faith edits were being unjustly blanket-reverted here:
Both User:Aquillion as well as User:Firefangledfeathers continued to maliciously revert my changes, despite my effort to continue improving upon my earlier good-faith contributions, without any discourse on the Talk page. Aquillion only finally commented on the Talk page minutes before requesting in bad faith that I be blocked, contrary to Wikipedia's position that good-faith edits are not vandalism and should not be blanket-reverted.
I cannot speak for their intentions, but this behavior feels like gatekeeping male pages/spaces on Wikipedia by anti-masculinists/misandrists. The history of the page seems to suggest that, since at least 2019, good-faith edits from gender-egalitarian editors have been consistently dismissed/denied by User:Sangdeboeuf and a few others:
Decline reason:
You seem to be saying that your edits were correct, but being correct is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. For the block to be removed early you will need to describe how to handle content disputes without edit warring. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Masculism.
Accusing others of "being extremely disingenuous" and "maliciously gatekeeping" is unacceptable. It doesn't help when you are the one cherry-picking parts of quotations to support your own personal POV in the article. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Since you've admitted to using a sockpuppet to get around your block, I've blocked your sockpuppet and extended your block to a week. If you persist in this behavior or return to edit warring again, the next block will be a lot longer. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Since you've decided the best course of action in response to this was to engage in more sockpuppetry with User:Rramaj18, I've changed your block to indefinite. Any continued efforts like this by you will be unsuccessful. Tens of thousands of people before you have attempted to sockpuppet and bludgeon the project into their preferred versions of articles. It never works. The number of people willing to undo your actions far, far outnumber your singular effort. Your only course forward that has the slightest chance of success is to wait a long time (likely six months or more), then place an unblock request that acknowledges what you have done wrong and what your plans are moving forward. Such plans will likely need to contain a promise not to edit Masculism or related articles. Such an unblock request needs to happen on this account, on this talk page. Trying to use a sockpuppet to appeal the unblock will result in rejection and block of that sockpuppet and its addition to this category. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I've cleared your block due to the sockpuppets not being yours, and that the original block of 36 hours for editing warring has long since expired. However, if you return to edit warring again you will be blocked again. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)