User talk:Elstonbrene

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Elstonbrene, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! Elstonbrene, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Ann Olivarius. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elstonbrene,

You will be blocked if you continue to post BLP-violating content on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources as truthful and you are a gatekeeper. Stop removing truthful contents! I will report you Elstonbrene (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly who would you report me to? I'm not a gatekeeper, I'm an administrator and my goal is not to protect a person but to protect this project. Please read over BLP policy so you understand why this content is not acceptable in this article. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report you to the users and other administrators. You are being biased in a very flagrant way! Elstonbrene (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted truthful and well sourced information on my edit. Stop removing contents because you may know the person or want to protect her because she is also a woman. Elstonbrene (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete our chat history Elstonbrene (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me why the Supreme Court of New York is an unreliable source of information? Are you implying they publish garbage in their website? Give a reason why those sources are unreliable Elstonbrene (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in discussing the situation with you until you read WP:BLP which I have asked you to do several times. It would address most of your concerns. By the way, you have been blocked, by another administrator, for violating BLP policy so it would have helped if you had read this policy previously.

But if you are going to ignore my attempts to respond to your questions and keep making random, weird allegations about me, then you'll have to appeal to another administrator for help getting out of the situation you've gotten yourself into. I'm not a gatekeeper and I have no interest in the subject of this article, just about enforcing Wikipedia policies. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it several times and found no information that says my sources are unreliable. Instead of threatening people you should point to what it is that is wrong. Elstonbrene (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cullen328 (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for making an honest contribution and have been accused of using unreliable sources which is not true. I read the policies and I could not find a problem in my edit which was also pointed out by other people in the past and was removed by censorship as the maintainers and creators of that page knows the subject matter (it can be seen in the talk page). I re-included the censored information pointed by other editors. I feel I have been prosecuted by people and have not been given a valid reason for the edits I have made. I and was just told to read policies which I did. I am a new user, have a disability, and I do not understand why people behave this way. Elstonbrene (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia has a strict policy about how living people are written about, see WP:BLP. You seem to misunderstand what an independent reliable source is. Court rulings and documents are considered primary sources; Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources. If news outlets report on the rulings of the New York Supreme Court or Bar Association, those reports would be valid sources. The accuracy of the primary sources is not at issue. Without addressing the truthfulness of your claims- we cannot claim that any individual has engaged in misconduct, recieved sanctions, or been convicted of a crime unless independent sources report that. Your only goal here seems to be to write about the alleged misconduct of a particular individual(I will note that WP:BLP applies to all pages so do not make those claims here, even). There are places that you can do that, Wikipedia is not one of them. You will not be unblocked to continue to do that. If there are other topics that you want to edit about, please tell what those might be. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2022 (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.