User talk:Ogress

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

This editor is a Labutnum of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Broken Pencil, Sticky Note, Bookmark, and Note from Jimbo.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Archive 66. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Careful about wording

I see you have tried inserting prose that was recently rejected after someone else tried to add it to the Beautiful captive woman article. There is currently a thread at WP:ANI about using the word "intercourse" in place of rape or sexual assault in this article. Please use the talk page of the article to discuss your contentious prose, or join the discussion about this euphemism at WP:ANI 74.254.224.26 (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not in fact insert "intercourse" for rape, perhaps you need to re-read my edits before reacting. Ogress 14:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. 107.115.5.95 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

April 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Beautiful captive woman. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Please note that accusing someone of sockpuppetry does not exempt you from WP:EW; only them actually being a sockpuppet does. You acknowledged that you were engaged in an edit war, were warned for the same by the IP you were edit-warring with, and then reverted again, accusing them of being a sockpuppet of a user they appear to have a different content POV on and, under a related IP, have supported a CBAN against. To be clear, the IP is not innocent here either, and if they continue to revert will be blocked as well. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

@Tamzin, I request an unblock simply because my initial edit was unrelated to the existing edit war; I noted that after hitting publish (it had lingered like a day before I hit "enter") that I found I was in the *middle* of the edit war and attempted to adjust my existing edit to adhere to the pre-war standard (i.e. rape). My reverts are therefore two, and ironically the reversions by the unproven sock were alleging I reverted this standard when I was in fact editing grammar and romanisation. I will not edit again; I am not interested in the edit war in question, although I agree that "rape" is a good choice for editors. (I won't panic if you say no, I just think it's a wrong decision.) Ogress 18:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were entirely and unambiguously edit-warring. What you needed to do was continue your discussion on the talk page and attempt to gain consensus for your change. Answering Tamzin's questions below could be helpful now. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:45, 19 April 2025 (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.

Ogress 18:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

So, in my book, continuing to revert after it's already established that it's an edit war is, well, edit-warring. I probably would have only partially blocked, though, if not for the unsubstantiated sockpuppetry allegations. As someone who makes a lot of sockpuppetry blocks, I know the weight that such allegations carry, and so I tend to take a pretty strong stance when people throw them around. Could you comment on your reasoning here for accusing this IP-hopper of being a sock of Davidbena? Did you compare the substance of their edits to David's? Did you look at the IP range to see that they had !voted to ban him? You don't have to answer these questions if you don't want—you can just let the block run its 24 hours—but this is the main thing I'd like to clear up to determine whether I'm willing to self-reverse. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

~I am not well-versed in the intricacies of investigating sockpuppetry (I actually posted a request for a sockpuppet review earlier this week, for clarity) and posted that statement hoping that someone with experience might investigate. I definitely didn't mean to cause drama nor do I have a history with sockpuppetry investigations. I do a ton of line edits, and have rarely found myself in any sort of edit wars. It seems extremely suspicious that the only person with an interest in the page had been blocked and then immediately i found myself targetted by a series of ip ranges claiming to support consensus but deleting my edits that supported it. whether or not you revert this ban, i would appreciate you aiming me at the general process when you suspect socking, because i don't really know the tools. also, please ignore the bad capitalisation here i have that horrible glitch that i can't reliably use shift on talk pages or it types the letter in question at the very beginning of the comment window. i keep trying to fix it and it keep reverting, super annoying. Ogress 19:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh also, no i didn't follow up on that page at all, I didn't look to the resolution at all. The IP ranges in the edit war appear to be pretty wide, suggesting a VPN. Ogress 19:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

So, most accusations of sockpuppetry belong at WP:SPI. In a case like this, where there's already an open AN/I thread on the topic, it's acceptable to post there instead, but you need to be clear about why you suspect sockpuppetry. I understand that following the movements of someone on a dynamic IP is complicated if you aren't familiar with how that works, but if you look into the IPs in Special:PageHistory/Beautiful captive woman, you'll see that AT&T IPs from Birmingham/Dallas/Houston (depending which geolocation source you use) have been editing the article since April 12. This looks like a dynamic IP, not a VPN; the user on the IP said as much in January. And their POV on the article does not look the same as David's. You and they may disagree about the best way to counter David's POV, but it's possible for there to be more than two sides to a dispute.

It's okay to be wrong about sockpuppetry, but it's important to present things based only on what you're confident in asserting. It would be one thing to simply ask "Does this look like sockpuppetry?", but you sent the IP a "suspected sockpuppet" warning, commented at AN I believe DavidBena is now sockpuppeting using anonymous IP on this article, and reverted the IP's edits. That's an accusation, one that you were sufficiently confident in to make a no-summary revert over. So that's the crux of the issue here. That's fundamentally an assumption of bad faith, and an invalid claim to the sockpuppetry exception to the edit-warring policy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, gotcha. That's helpful, genuinely. Ogress 23:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

If it's any help and hopefully reassurance, I would be astonished if Davidbena was editing on the sabbath. I find his timecard confirms that (Israel is currently on UTC+3). NebY (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not particularly concerned about him, but thank you. (It's still Shabbat here but I'm not a halakhic Jew.) Ogress 23:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)