User talk:ErickTheMerrick

Hello, I'm Yue. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Popular Movement of the Revolution, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yue🌙 19:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Userbox name, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

friend, what I changed is not vandalism, the constitutions of Uzbekistan and Karakalpakstan say that Karakalpakstan is a Sovereign Republic, part of Uzbekistan, if you don’t believe me, you can read the constitutions of both republics Qaraqalpaq patriyotı (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It says a sovereign republic within Uzbekistan, as in an autonomous republic. Its the same t ErickTheMerrick (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• it's the same thing ErickTheMerrick (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at National Congress Party (Sudan), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi ErickTheMerrick! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Cameroon 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:Cameroon, 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. Remsense ‥ 论 00:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, it is completely unacceptable that you reinstated your change without a word after a discussion was started where clear reasons disputing it were given. Remsense ‥ 论 00:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I know we've quickly come to loggerheads over these issues, but I don't want to fight and I don't want anyone to feel frustrated or afraid to edit or whatever. Can we clear the air and settle things on a more abstract sense, without relating to any particular article? I know I can be pretty vociferous so this might sound hypocritical, but you directly mocking the way I wrote on Talk:Cameroon made me feel briefly like I couldn't work with you. But that's not true. I hope we can work it out. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论 00:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m sorry for my mocking among other things. I’ve been going through a rough time with life stuff and have been overly rude. I do hope I can convince you on some things and that we can try and work to find a common ground. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate that. Remsense ‥ 论 00:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

What I want to make more clear is that, while I've often been the one to first notice much of the time, I do not feel I have a particularly strong or limiting interpretation of the guidelines here. There are absolutely other editors with a lot of experience with even stricter tastes. Remsense ‥ 论 00:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Another example that might be illustrative: with Beiyang government specifically, note that we've needed to add years awkwardly so that it is not totally ambiguous what the presence of the Empire represents. That we need to "hack" the presentation like that shows we are trying to do something that is not what the parameter is designed for. Really, I think it's important that parameters can be read as straightforward, uncontroversial answers to the most basic questions about a topic: "What followed the Beiyang Government – the split into Nationalist- and Communist-controlled areas, of course." Remsense ‥ 论 01:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I see your point pretty well, but I still think it would be a good idea to show that the empire existed there as a successor and predecessor. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It's just conflating two relations of totally different qualities. You cannot really describe the Empire as a "predecessor" or "successor" state of the Beiyang government and leave it at that—that would be completely misleading, wouldn't it? Remsense ‥ 论 01:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Possibly. I dont really know. I don't have strong opinions on this particular subject. I think it should be mentioned somewhere close to the top in the article. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it's not presently mentioned in the body of the lead, and probably should be. Would that work? Remsense ‥ 论 01:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

That sounds good ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

So were you using the IP range 2800:2503:9:C355:0:0:0:0/64 to make prior edits diff 1 and diff 2 to the CEDA article? — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

No. I did see you accusing someone else of that though. Why not include the far-right label? They had plenty of sources for it ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted that IP's edit because they were evading the block of User:Holiptholipt (SPI archive). When someone is blocked from editing due to block or ban evasion, their edits may be all reverted even if they are supposedly correct or sourced, which is why I removed it. Your restoration of that blocked IP's edit got me a bit alert here as a result. Anyways, thanks for answering, no worries. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for explaining ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, not real sure what happened in your recent changes at Sudan People's Liberation Movement (fixed now, no worries), but please use Preview, and please only use nowiki when it's really called for. It can easily make a mess. Just a heads up - thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’m new to adding sources and stuff like that on here and I’m not really sure about how to fix it. I wanted to do it by myself because nobody else added the info and it ended up not working out well. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I do apologize for causing such a mess with my citations. Thanks a lot for fixing them. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks a lot. I hope your truly have a lovely day and perhaps maybe think about spending your time in a better way. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ErickTheMerrick,

It would help a lot if you commented on this discussion. I'd like to hear your perspective on this dispute. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed I wasn’t supposed to. I’ll share my own perspective on this then. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Again? Buddy, leave it alone ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have some personal gripe with me? This is getting comical now ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said before, participating in these discussions, which can involve a loss of editing privileges, is better than ignoring them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add there that I can think of. I stand by my edits and what I've said, though some of the language had been harsh, I've restrained from using vulgar language as to not warrant an actual ban. I do enjoy editing on Wikipedia so I wouldn't want to be banned from it, but it isn't really in my control right now. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@ErickTheMerrick, I don't want to split this discussion over two different pages. Please come to the ANI thread. Right now, you're letting other editors speak for you. Those editors want you blocked; if you say nothing, it is inevitable that you will be. -- asilvering (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm JayBeeEll. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Bulgarian Communist Party 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. JBL (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to maintain good faith here, but I think a number of editors are concerned about your approach to sources and facts. Finding yourself in multiple edit conflicts in parallel ought to be an indicator of something. For example,

• look, the notion that PFLP would be 'Christian socialist' is really a WP:FRINGE point. You've now reinstated the obvious troll edit twice. Granted that this term exists in one document, but the point here is that we can't just grab anything available on the internet and extrapolate on it.
• Adding a 1962 unpublished document as a reference on present-day positions is not ok. And as illustrated in Talk:Left_Front_(West_Bengal)#Socialist_Unity_Centre, it seems you had not read it before using it as a reference. I apologize if my tone might be somewhat snarky, but what part of that text did you intend to use as a reference?
• On Labour Party of Indonesia you misread the article body. The use of the term 'anarcho-syndicalist' was clearly a pejorative used by Sukarno.
• National communism clearly isn't an apt label for KPRF. It refers to a specific historical phenomenon, of which KPRF clearly isn't part of.
• On the discussion on Stalinism, you seem to be under the impression that Strasserism is a variant of ML (!).

Overall, I'd suggest trying to avoid being disruptive across a large span of articles, to be more cautious of how sources are used, listen to the inputs of others and avoid sticking to labels when accuracy is placed in doubt. -- Soman (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Not a troll edit, but I think the others were right on this specific edit and I'll leave it out.
• I did mess up that, yeah.
• You linked the wrong thing, but looking back at that edit, I did misread it. Apologies.
• I concede.
• You seem to have misread what I said, I meant variants of all ideologies. I see how my wording could be confusing here though. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  If I can posit a bit of procedural advice, as someone who struggles with this at times also: please consider in more instances simply engaging in discussion before reverting. You do this constantly with many experienced editors, and I recognize the behavior as creating a lot of unnecessary friction.

  Wikipedia operates off of consensus, so if it is implausible you will alleviate the concerns of others with your revert, you are in effect trying to impose your preferred version over them, and potentially against a stronger consensus. These things are not ideally deliberated over edit summary. Remsense ‥ 论 04:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Look man, Turkey is not under an authoritarian regime. As a person who lives there, I’m just saying, I had already disscused this before in its talk page, and everyone has agreed that turkey is not an authoritarian regime. Please stop, and revert. Datawikiperson (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Its sourced information man, idk what to tell you. Personal opinion or experience isn't a valid reason to reject the claim. You need sources to backup claims. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Nobody ever said turkey is a country under an authoritarian dictatorship. The opposition literally won the 2024 local elections, and own cities like Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, and Adana. Just because Erdogan arrested their political rival doesn’t mean that it is now authoritarian regime. It’s just too soon to declare that Turkey is now under an authoritarian dictatorship and the opposition cannot win. Also India did the same thing yet they are still considered democratic. There are protests, and they are winning, with many being bailed out. As I’ve said, I already discussed this in the talk page, so read for more details. Have a great day! Datawikiperson (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Yet again. I'm sorry but its sourced. You can disagree about it but you haven't brought sources to dispute this, only your opinion. Have a great day also though! ErickTheMerrick (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources? Datawikiperson (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, sources are kinda what Wikipedia is built upon. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

My source: https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/online-exclusive/how-turkeys-opposition-won-big/ Datawikiperson (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

No what sources do you have? Datawikiperson (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Now

Datawikiperson (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Your source literally calls Turkey an authoritarian regime twice and autocratic. Just because the opposition won more seats doesn't make it not an authoritarian regime. As for my sources. They are in the edit I made on the page. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

That doesn’t even make any sense. First the source says that it was moving forwards authoritarianism, and it is like competitive authoritarianism, like Hungary and India, second, The opposition won! Isn’t that enough! Like in actual authoritarian countries, the opposition is banned, and never wins! What is this! Datawikiperson (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

That isn’t enough. It’s only one source too. Opposition isn’t banned in every authoritarian country. Like in Cambodia or Russia or Hungary. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

And this: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgexjkx3v3o Datawikiperson (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

This source still doesn’t repudiate disprove the claim of authoritarianism. It just says that the arrested opposition leader is in court. Russians arrested by the government are also seen appearing in court. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

In Cambodia, opposition is banned like in the 2023 election they couldn’t qualify, and the government already dismantled the main opposition anyway before the 2023 election. And in Russia the true opposition is banned. They just have fake parties that are controlled by the current government and are pro-putin and all that, and also rigg elections. When was the last time you saw any opposition win anything in Russia or Cambodia? None! And no Hungary is not in the same authoritarian position as Russia and Cambodia. It is like India, Turkey, and other governments. Datawikiperson (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yet again, I’m sorry, but personal experience and opinion isn’t considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. The authoritarian government part is sourced while your position does not have any sources explicitly refuting this. You need to drop the stick. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Just look at the v-dem institute or the EIU democracy index. Datawikiperson (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The V-Dem democracy report says that Turkey is autocratic and EIU Democracy Index doesn't refute the authoritarian claim. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You need to let this go, its sourced info and your sources haven’t proven the others wrong. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, Turkey is put above countries like Comoros and Guinea-bissau, which are still considered somewhat democratic, and EIU calls Turkey an hybrid regime. Datawikiperson (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

But all the other sources I have put all call it authoritarian… You to accept when you’ve lost an argument. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

No, they call it going towards authoritarianism. Datawikiperson (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

No, they call it authoritarian and autocratic. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

No, they call it appraching toward. You should actually read the article. Datawikiperson (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I did, some say towards or approaching, some say it is. I do not wish to discuss this anymore since its sourced and your argument is weak and based on personal opinion and feelings. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Look man, I don’t want to discuss this either, but it’s the truth and I know it. If turkey is authoritarian, Serbia, India, Hungary, and Singapore sure also be considered countries under an authoritarian dictatorship, but they are not, which is why this needs to go. The countries under an authoritarian regime tag is only for countries like Russia or Venezuela, not Turkey. They also never say they are authoritarian since I actually read them. Just remove it. Please. Your argument is weak as nobody ever said that turkey is under an authoritarian regime like Russia or Venezuela. It’s this easy, and you would prevent misinformation for spreading. I already listed MY sources, do what you want with them. Have a great day! Datawikiperson (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t put dictatorship, I put regime. I think the leaders of Serbia, India, and Hungary are wanna-be dictators, but they aren’t full dictatorships, just authoritarian regimes. Also here are sources directly calling Erdoğan’s rule in Turkey authoritarian: https://freedomhouse.org/article/end-competitive-authoritarianism-turkey, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2022/02/turkey-under-erdogan-how-a-country-turned-from-democracy-and-the-west?lang=en&center=europe, https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2024/10/18/how-not-to-dethrone-an-authoritarian-leader-the-case-of-turkeys-erdogan/, https://jacobin.com/2025/03/turkey-erdogan-imamoglu-imprisonment-authoritarianism. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, I would like to inform you that that is reserved countries that have dictatorships, like Russia, Venezuela, and Belarus. They do not count, thus they shouldn’t be added. Datawikiperson (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It is not??? That’s just plain not true. Before the last Venezuelan election, Venezuela was labeled a “under an authoritarian regime” which is notably not saying dictatorship necessarily. Qatar right now is also labeled a “under an authoritarian government”. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

No, many are being bailed out! Datawikiperson (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I've stated before that your pattern of re-inserting untrue stuff is problematic. In this edit you restored a claim that the Parcham faction originated in the Shola-e Javid group. Please share the source for this fact? -- Soman (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I removed that now. As for the rest, on their respective pages, they all say that Parcham was their predecessor. Afghan nationalism is sourced and shouldn’t be removed. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I will also later look for sources to back up some more stuff like possibly Islamic socialism or how the faction was more moderate. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that labels like 'Afghan nationalism' can apply to virtually any grouping by default. --Soman (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

That isn't true or how that works though??? Not any grouping is Afghan nationalist by default. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi ErickTheMerrick, you have just added a new source (Shub's book Lenin) to the article Left Socialist-Revolutionaries. I suspect there is an inconsistency that I would ask you to check out. As far as I can see, there were two editions of Shub's book in 1948: the first edition Lenin: A Biography, 438 pages, published by Doubleday, and an abridged edition, 192 pages, published as a Mentor Book by NAL, to which you seem to refer. In that case, however, the page number, 322, that you indicate as the source would be incorrect. I also suggest that you use the same citation system as for the other sources without creating a "Bibliography" section consisting of only one work. Jeanambr (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what you mean. I accessed a archive.org copy of the book and found a quote affirming their political position. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find another copy and to verify. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe the correct page would be 284. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've also added another source that deals more extensively with the party's ideas and political positions. Cheers. Jeanambr (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from copy/pasting the same exact content in several articles, as you did in many U.S. state and territorial Democratic Parties. Duplicating content across Wikipedia is not encyclopedic. —PerpetuityGrat (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC) PerpetuityGrat (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing that revision I made to the article. I reverted it, but changed my mind after I couldn't tell if this was vandalism or disruption or if it wasn't. This user also made similar changes to a few others; feel free to undo those as well. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, ur welcome :) ErickTheMerrick (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You have to be fucking kidding me. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Fuck off I'm done. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The block is limited to 3 months because I knew there'd be no chance of a manual unblock. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, see you next year and wtv ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It's all good; I'd normally not reply here. I don't need the last word, no grudges from my side. But there is one single mistake you could make during these three months and it's so easily done and has such severe consequences that I should mention it. You may even be aware of this and still neglecting the danger in your mind; please don't, it fails so painfully regularly that it's almost impossible that your case would be different. And that is sockpuppetry / block evasion. Whether logged out or with a new account, it would be noticed. Behaviorally or technically; there's little one can do to avoid it being detected, and it can bite you even months after the block expired. Attempting to circumvent the block almost invariably, inevitably hurts. If you think using a mobile phone at an airport saves you from it, someone noticing the writing style will still find their way to WP:SPI. Whatever you may invent, people had the same idea before and failed. Please just don't try. All the best and until then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh no, I won't be block evasioning. I'll just be waiting until I'm unblocked. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Also: Block notices may be freely removed. Declined unblock requests are special (WP:UP#CMT) but you're absolutely free to remove this section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:07, 3 October 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I made an accidental revert on the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party page in which I reverted instead of just re-adding the specific content. I only meant to re-add the sources for populism as they were well sourced but ended up bringing back the left-wing faction add. I deleted that per the previous edit made by the other user and only kept the populism add.

Decline reason:

This isn't about a single revert. This is about your clear edit warring there. And this is your third block for edit warring. I could see you being unblocked with a WP:0RR restriction, perhaps, but fundamentally we need to be convinced that this is the very last time you edit war. Nothing here convinces me of that. Yamla (talk) 01:21, 8 October 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.

K.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I believe that I should be unblocked or rather, the amount of time my block is for should be shortened as the amount of time I am block for seems excessive. I don’t think the punishment fits the offense.

Decline reason:

You have the habit of edit warring, and we increase the block time each time this happens, since you are clearly not getting the message. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:37, 24 October 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.

Using this as a reply; I still do not believe that 2 months is an acceptable punishment, my previous was what, two weeks? The vast increase in length is unnecessary. I just want to contribute a bit more with some edits, I’ll keep my reverts to a minimum and be more diplomatic but two months is ridiculous. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I am asking to be unblocked with regard to adding to talk pages. I have been tagged in a talk page discussion for South Vietnam and would like to contribute. I am not sure if this is possible but I would appreciate it.

Accept reason:

Lifting to this to a partial unblock, allowing you to edit outside of the article namespace. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade He has already begun edit warring again, trying to force changes not accepted by the community. TheUzbek (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I have not. I am simply just re-adding some sourced content you removed without any reason or consensus. Stop attempting to get me banned over your edits. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Just because you don't like an edit, doesn't make it edit warring. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

You have come into repeated conflict with users over these additions, and in all cases they have been opposed.. and you still continue to include them. That sounds like editwarring to me; that you have expanded your reach to other articles does not make it any better. Follow WP:CONSENSUS, and let the infoboxes be. As I have always said, that information can always be included in the article body. TheUzbek (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Most are disputed by one person, this isn't going against consensus. You didn't have consensus to remove military regimes mentions from infoboxs which was sourced so stop doing it. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

There is WP:CONSENSUS. See Talk:Somali Democratic Republic#Deleted details: Nikkimari has explained to you how infoboxes work, and you refuse to listen. TheUzbek (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion isn't even done. One incomplete discussion doesn't make a broader consensus on every page. Stop wasting my fucking time with this. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

He has repeatedly been told by Nikkimaria (and others) that his repeated edits to infoboxes are unhelpful. For example, she wrote this on the Talk:Somali Democratic Republic article: "What is on other countries doesn't matter (see WP:OTHERCONTENT. What does matter is what is in this article. The lead and infobox are meant to summarize the article, not the other way around; the article should remain complete with the infobox ignored (see MOS:IBP). Details belong in the article body, not in the lead (see WP:DETAIL). On top of that, sandwiching links together creates accessibility issues (see MOS:SOB)."

But to the point. His edits have been reverted countless of times by me and other editors, and above he writes: "Most are disputed by one person, this isn't going against consensus." What is the first thing he does? Revert WP:CONSENSUS on Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. TheUzbek (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, the Somali Democratic Republic RfC isn't over. It isn't asking for too much. A totalitarian military dictatorship is a perfectly reasonable thing to have on a gov't infobox, especially since its well-sourced. On the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan page, there was no consensus, don't lie. YOU decided by yourself to remove the details. Another editor even reverted your edit for this reason. You really should stop this. Attempting to get me banned again because you don't like that your edits are being opposed isn't a good solution and shows a lack of maturity on your end. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, my pronouns are they/them. Please use them. :) ErickTheMerrick (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, you initiated an RFC that proves that I was right regarding Somalia. We've had other cases as well. But every time you lose you refuse to accept the results. TheUzbek (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

It. Isn’t. Over. The RfC has not ended. Again, wait a fucking little before speaking like everything you say is right. YOU are the belligerent one, going from page to page deleting stuff without consensus. Stop this ridiculous behavior. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

It is objectively over, an uninvolved third party has closed it with consensus against your proposed inclusions. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay? Again, this isn't even what we were talking about. Also, you weren't involved in thos discussion, leave. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

TheUzbek: If you have continued issues with ErickTheMerrick, I suggest following typical dispute resolution guidelines. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

He was invited on one regarding Laos; he refused to take part... TheUzbek (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

they* Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. May I ask how you added your pronouns next to your name? I think it’d make it easier to avoid confusions like this. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

In preferences, I updated my signature to the following: [[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade <small>(she/her)</small>]] ([[User talk:Significa liberdade|talk]]). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I made some mistakes, but I think I got it now. Thank you! ErickTheMerrick [[(they/them)]] (talk). 17:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

And I am no longer in conflict with that discussion. What does this have to do with anything right now? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like to add I am only looking for being unblocked for talk pages. Not everything so please do not waste both our time. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

ToBeFree: Do you have any thoughts about a pblock? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

What's that? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Significa liberdade, ErickTheMerrick, a partial block from the article namespace that allows editing all other pages ... yes, why not. Feel free to simply set it to the remaining duration and overwrite the current block. Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, regarding my adding of social conservatism in the Democratic Revolutionary Party was because of this:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/06/panamanians-protest-proposed-ban-marriage-equality https://newsroompanama.com/2019/10/29/lawmaker-opposes-gays-entry-to-assembly/

A constitutional amendment, which was later withdrawn, sought to define maarriage between a man and a woman. This was promoted by President Laurentino Cortizo of the PRD party and this can be proven by controversial statements by a deputy of the National Assembly, who said demeaning statements towards the LGBT population during the protests which successfully ended the legislative proposal. The amendment's Article 56, introduced by Jairo Bolota (PRD) and Corina Cano (MOLIRENA), proves that the party is not progressive. Foreverwillbeokay (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I see. You would need to add the sources to re-add social conservatism. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Partido Auténtico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal nationalism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Testing my username to see if I fixed an error ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beshogur (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:RSOPINION you should not be labelling them as stalinist without an opinion qualifier. This certainly shouldn't be in the infobox if it is only reported by one source per MOS:IBP. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you are now subject to a topic ban from infoboxes, broadly construed, and a community-imposed WP:1RR restriction within the topic of working-class politics, broadly construed. Appealing these restrictions can be done by following the procedures detailed at WP:UNBAN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

From all infoboxes? All infoboxes? Really? What the fuck lol? A "restriction within the topic of working-class politics"? This feels very politically targeted, no? This is ridiculous. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Whatever man. I don't need to edit here rn anyway. Bye bye!!! ;) ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The Bushranger they have already violated their topic ban when WP:BMB. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 16:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Please self-revert so you do not get sanctioned any further. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 16:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

And if I do not? ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Kinda hard to do that when you're blocked from editing? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It was not my decision to block you. If it were mine, I'd wait to see your response. However, given that you didn't defend yourself in the AN/I and were notified of your ban just a little while ago, I don't think The Bushranger did anything that was 'wrong' either. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 20:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

There wouldn't have been much to defend, you people seem to have made up your minds. A complete ban on infoboxes is ridiculous and a "restriction within the topic of working-class politics" does seem to feel very strange and unwarranted. So because I'm an anti-Marxist-Leninist, that means I can't be trusted to edit and working class politics? I mean, come on, thats ridiculous. I'll appeal this eventually, but it really is all just a ridiculous circus. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Its not your beliefs but your action within that topic area. I myself am not a Marxist-Leninist. You can still read the AN/I thread to be informed as to why you were blocked. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 20:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not accusing you or anyone of being a Marxist-Leninist. If anything, I would expect the opposite. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Your political positions have nothing to do with your restrictions on editing Wikipedia. Your conduct in editing Wikipedia has everything to do with your restrictions. Given your history I would suggest scrupulously adhering to those restrictions to demonstrate that you can, in fact, operate within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you do, then your contributions will be welcome and, in time, the restrictions can be lifted. If you don't, future blocks are likely to be for much longer durations. The choice is up to you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

• You were topic-banned from infoboxes, and the first edit you make in articlespace afterwards is to an infobox. Not cool. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  k ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Due to the uncivil comments (that have since been removed) that have been added to this page following your sanctions, I've added a section to the existing ANI Thread concerning your behaviour. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow, you're really making the world a better place, aren't you? ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

As I can't reply to the ANI thread, I'll reply here:

My comments were made after rude comments made by EasternShah. He was rude and so I was rude back. I then deleted the whole part because it wasn't productive and didn't add anything. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

From WP:UNCIVIL: All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response [...] – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

(To clarify, I'm not explicitly describing ES's behaviour as baiting, just pointing out that this excuse is meaningless) – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I would say it was bait, but I get it and I apologize for lashing out. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm the one who initially proposed the set of sanctions that were applied to you (the infobox topic ban and the 1RR from working class politics), and I'd like to write you a message explaining why, and to encourage you to keep editing.

I understand the topic ban from infoboxes may seem a bit silly, I'd like to clarify it. There are some topics on Wikipedia, roughly outlined by Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Active_sanctions, which tend to get editors more heated and prone to disruptive editing. That list of topics includes things you might expect, like the Arab-Israeli conflict, abortion, modern American politics, or the Russia-Ukraine war. But there's also a few oddball ones you might not expect, like weather events, professional wrestling, and the capitalization of article titles. I couldn't always tell you why editors have trouble behaving themselves when editing in those areas, but they do.

You'll notice that infoboxes are on that list, although the arbcom case was specific to edits that add or remove entire infoboxes from articles, not edits to infobox parameters. If you ask me, something about infoboxes just causes a little bit of madness for some editors. Whatever it is, based on the fact that all of your edits that were brought up at AnI were infobox related, I think that madness had affected you, too.

As for the 1RR from working class politics, that was a compromise I proposed with the folks who wanted a dual topic ban or a site ban, and it doesn't sit quite right with me either. You seem very interested in the subject, and I think restricting you from contributions to that topic would be unnecessarily punishing for you, and is a negative to encyclopedic coverage of the history of working class politics. A 1RR restriction at least lets you still contribute to the topic, but when your edits are contested, it forces you to take part in talk page discussions to seek consensus more often (if you ask me, that's the fun part of Wikipedia!)

I hope you're doing well, and I hope sincerely you'll go on to keep editing productively. Have a lovely day. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 02:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding and kindness. Just to clarify, you say that topic bans for info boxes are for “specific to edits that add or remove entire infoboxes from articles, not edits to infobox parameters”. How come I’m being restricted from all infobox edits then? I agree about the working class politics restriction. It is indeed my topic of most interest and restricting me from it doesn’t seem right to me. I‘lol likely make an appeal for a light punishment over the weekend or some other time in the future. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I have a some edits concerning info boxes and politics, so I want to know so I can avoid getting blocked again. One is on the Trumpism page, where I want to move the sources for right-wing to the body like “It has been referred to as an American political variant of the populist radical right-wing and the far-right”. I also want to fix a simple linking issue on the progressivism page, making “left-leaning” simply link to the Political spectrum page and not to the “Center-left politics” page. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

For any edit that changes any aspect of an infobox - even (heck, especially) if it's changing a minor detail - I would recommend you not do it. You also shouldn't be suggesting edits to infoboxes on talk pages. The only exception is if you are reverting obvious vandalism, or if you are asking for clarifications about your topic ban like you're doing right now (see WP:BANEX). If you want to move sources from the infobox to somewhere else on the page, I would instead suggest you re-use the same source for the body without changing anything about the infobox.

I should clarify: the dispute about adding/removing infoboxes is just the thing that the specific arbcom case (WP:CT/CID) was about, where infoboxes got classified as a contentious topic. I was more using the arbcom case(s) as examples to illustrate the point, that infoboxes are something that some editors get worked up over. Plenty of other flavors of infobox related disputes have also happened.

Your topic ban doesn't actually involve any of the contentious topic machinery; contentious topics are mostly a system that authorizes administrators to sanction an obviously disruptive editor without having to wait for consensus, so long as the editor had been made aware of the CT. But you had never been made aware of WP:CT/CID, and your topic ban was a result of consensus anyway, so that doesn't apply. The admins don't seem to use WP:CT/CID sanctions very much at all, to be honest.

As for appealing the 1RR restriction: I think it's too soon for you to appeal. I think you should give editing under your restrictions an honest try! Once you've demonstrated to the community that you can edit productively with the restriction, you'll be granted the ability to edit without it. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 19:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)