User talk:2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109

April 2018[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

- Mr X 🖋 13:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

CNN controversies[edit]

You appear to misunderstand the situation. You are correct that consensus is required on this article before challenged text is restored. However, Volunteer Marek challenged it. It was incorrectly restored twice by 212.83.134.165. It was then incorrectly restored twice by you. Three editors have reverted these restorations after Marek’s initial removal. So, not only were these DS violations, you are now edit warring on a DS article. That is not wise. I suggest you self-revert your last restoration. O3000 (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek challenged text that was added months ago and hadn't changed - we call that an "edit" which 212.83.134.165 challenged. You restored it even though the talk page warning says you need consensus. So get consensus. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

You appear to be editing anonymously. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in both your account and IP address being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. (cf. Special:Contributions/Darryl.jensen) SummerPhD^v2.0 17:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Are you saying I'm jensen? Of course not. I think there's only one page we both edited. Just as likely your SPECIFICO or Scjessy which I'm not suggesting. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring.

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 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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can you review the edit history? I removed a clearly unsourced claim about a small org per WP:BLPGROUP. Two editors restored it without sourcing it or discussing it on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier#Center_for_Immigration_Studies Does BLP not apply anymore? 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear case of edit warring. As your request does not address this, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2018 (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.

The source has "The Center for Immigration Studies, a right-wing group that advocates for reductions in legal immigration". How to word "advocates for reductions in legal immigration" is a matter for discussion and not an edit warring exemption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I concede all of that and if the edit said "anti-immigration" I wouldn't have touched it. It said "anti-immigrant" which is totally different. The first opposes more immigration, the second opposes immigrants including people who already immigrated. It was a good faith BLP removal that was restored without discussion. How can that be against policy and their restoring it without consensus allowed? 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you edit warred instead of adding three letters? Not very smart or collaborative. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: How does it not address the edit warring when even NeilN admits "anti-immigrant" is unsourced making removal BLP exempt? BLP is THE most important policy but somehow 4 guys who break it get off without a warning and the guy who observes it gets blocked. Come on. Anyone who says there's no double standard for IPs vs account just needs to look here. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My declining speaks for itself and I have no other comment on it. You can only control your own behavior. If others are behaving badly, there are proper channels to address that. It also seems clear to me that this isn't your first effort in editing Wikipedia and you are aware of those channels given that you are aware of other policies. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2018 (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).

2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My unblock request addresses the edit warring because now even NeilN admits "anti-immigrant" is unsourced making my removal BLP exempt. How else am I supposed to address breaking 3RR to remove a BLP vio? If you want me to promise not to continue the edit war, sure thing, I promise not to. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's no acknowledgement here that the conduct was problematic and would need to be changed. The off-hand promise is unconvincing, and I agree with NeilN that there's wikilawyering going on, with BLP waved about as a "get out of edit-warring free" card. Thus the issues that led to the block are likely to recur. Huon (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2018 (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.

.

"even NeilN admits "anti-immigrant" is unsourced" Diff? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said I "edit warred instead of adding three letters" acknowledging there's a different between anti-immigration (sourced) and anti-immigrant (unsourced) which I removed per BLPGROUP. How about this - link a source for "anti-immigrant" or admit the text I removed was unsourced. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously ignoring the main point of why you are blocked. How to word "advocates for reductions in legal immigration" is a matter for discussion and not an edit warring exemption. Instead of adding three letters (or even mentioning your suggestion) and seeing if that would be accepted, you edit warred. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I didn't add "anti-immigration" because I don't think it's WP:DUE. Are you saying in order to remove a BLP vio I have to add new text I don't agree with? I can't seem to find that line in WP:BLP but hey let's just make policy up as we go to justify a bad block. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recommend an early unblock for this editor - too much potential for disruption and wikilawyering. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not recommend..." You let off at least 4 guys for restoring an unsourced BLP vio but your bigger worry is that I might edit war after I promised not to. BS. At least we have some guys who still care about the project [1] so it shakes out in the end. When did you all go form the cavalry here to help to the hired guns to avoid? Sad. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.