User talk:Tacosjajajajja

Thank you for your response. I understand the concern regarding edit warring, and I’m willing to accept a 1RR restriction as a condition of being unblocked. I will focus on consensus-building through talk pages moving forward. Tacosjajajajja (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight Tacosjajajajja (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you post another unblock request where you say you are willing to accept a 1RR restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Sand War, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Sand War. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 13:18, 1 June 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

all I did was edit articles and now I’m blocked??

Decline reason:

You disruptively edited Sand War, as well as other articles. Since you don't seem to think you did anything wrong, we will have to leave the block in place. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2025 (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.

Literally didn’t do anything Tacosjajajajja (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests break section headers; please place all edits in the larger edit window, not the smaller section header/edit summary window. You can avoid creating section headers entirely by clicking "edit" and not "add topic". 331dot (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to 331dot.

I tried to reply but the reply link didn’t work, so I’m adding my message here instead.

331dot,

My edits included clear and reliable references that meet Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements. I believe the block may not be fully justified and could reflect a difference in interpretation of policies. It’s important that all contributions adhere to verifiable facts and reliable sources, and I intend to continue contributing accordingly.

I hope we can work together to ensure the article reflects accurate and well-sourced information.Tacosjajajajja (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Tacosjajajajja (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may make a new unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Reply" is imperfect and doesn't work well in all situations; it's often better to click "edit" at the top or in the section header to edit this page; not "add topic". 331dot (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello,

I am requesting a review and reconsideration of my block on Wikipedia. I believe the block was imposed unfairly, as my edits included properly sourced, verifiable information adhering to Wikipedia’s content guidelines. I made efforts to provide reliable references and improve article accuracy.

The block appears to be more related to editorial disagreement rather than a violation of Wikipedia policy. I am committed to contributing constructively and collaboratively to Wikipedia and am willing to follow any guidance on improving my editing approach.

Please consider lifting the block so I can continue contributing with accurate, well-sourced content.

Thank you for your time and review. :D Tacosjajajajja (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello,

I am requesting a review and reconsideration of my block on Wikipedia. I believe the block was imposed unfairly, as my edits included properly sourced, verifiable information adhering to Wikipedia’s content guidelines. I made efforts to provide reliable references and improve article accuracy.

The block appears to be more related to editorial disagreement rather than a violation of Wikipedia policy. I am committed to contributing constructively and collaboratively to Wikipedia and am willing to follow any guidance on improving my editing approach.

Please consider lifting the block so I can continue contributing with accurate, well-sourced content.

Thank you for your time and review. :D

Sincerely, Tacosjajajajja

Decline reason:

I suggest you read WP:EW - you were edit warring. Would you consider an WP:1RR restriction? PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2025 (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.

Unblocking request

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

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

Request reason:

I understand that my editing behavior caused concern and I'm willing to accept a 1RR (one revert per article per 24 hours) restriction as a condition for being unblocked. I will focus on improving collaboration, seeking consensus, and discussing changes on talk pages when needed. Thank you for your consideration. Tacosjajajajja (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocking with WP:1RR. (Courtesy ping Newslinger as blocking admin.) Happy editing. -- asilvering (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tacosjajajajja (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Please stop. If you continue to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), as you did at User talk:M.Bitton, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tacosjajajajja (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sand War. 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. M.Bitton (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, M.Bitton. It's good to know that "edit warring" only applies to those who challenge your version of neutrality. I'll be sure to keep that in mind while watching well-sourced Moroccan and Amazigh content vanish under the guise of "consensus".

Looking forward to a truly balanced discussion, whenever that happens.

--Tacosjajajajja (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:M.Bitton. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Skitash (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skitash, I reject the claim that I engaged in any personal attacks, my remarks focused strictly on content issues and editorial patterns, all within Wikipedia's policies.

If firmness in defending balanced representation is hostility, so be it. I consistently acted in good faith and expect that same standard applied fairly to all editors.

Tacosjajajajja (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:M.Bitton, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. M.Bitton (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your warning, M.Bitton, and will continue to focus on content than personal matters. However, I stand by my concerns regarding bias and selective enforcement that affect balanced representation. If these issues continue unresolved, I am more than prepared to seek formal dispute resolution through Wikipedia's arbitration process to ensure fairness and uphold Wikipedia's standards.

Tacosjajajajja (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no resolution for your personal attacks that speak volumes about the kind of editor that you are and your mission to right great wrongs. M.Bitton (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated attempts to frame legitimate, policy-based content criticism as personal attacks only reinforce the concern that dissenting viewpoints are being silenced, not debated. I will not accept characterizations meant to delegitimize good will efforts to ensure balanced coverage. I've remained within Wikipedia's policies and will continue to challenge editorial bias wherever it appears, firmly, and without apology.

Tacosjajajajja (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton Tacosjajajajja (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tacosjajajajja,

In an edit summary, M.Bitton asked you to stay off of their User talk page. It's a custom on Wikipedia that when an editor requests that another editor only post messages that are required, that request is honored. So, please, no longer post on their User talk page.

Also, you phrased your complaint on ANI as a request for arbitration but it's not appropriate to post that on an Administrator's Noticeboard but on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, I agree that the Arbitration Committee (full disclosure: I'm an arbitrator) would not accept a case to arbitration that hadn't been discussed at WP:AN or WP:ANI. So, a post at ANI was a good first step but it shouldn't have been labeled as a request for arbitration or it would simply been dismissed which is what happened. Frame it as a regular complaint about suspected misconduct and it wouldn't be immediately closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct

At this point I am considering reinstating your indefinite block for treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and refusing to edit collaboratively after warnings or blocks, even when this is a condition of your unblock. I strongly advise you to drop your ANI complaint or whatever it is you intended, and to stop personalizing disagreements. @Asilvering:, @Newslinger:, @PhilKnight:, do you have any views on this? Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the indefinite block should be reinstated. In Special:Diff/1296726803, Tacosjajajajja denied using AI, despite the fact that both Special:Diff/1296701444 and Special:Diff/1296721675 are blatantly LLM-generated. This also falls under two other examples of not being here to build an encyclopedia: "General pattern of disruptive behavior" and "Dishonest and gaming behaviors". — Newslinger talk 21:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy re-ping to asilvering and PhilKnight, as I did not receive the first ping. — Newslinger talk 22:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for Pete's sake. Their second edit after unblocking is this: [1]. Tacos, that's not "seeking consensus" and "discussing changes". Go right ahead, @Acroterion. -- asilvering (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a consensus that you immediately violated the terms of your unblock, I've reinstated the indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]