Critchion
|
Discretionary sanctions notification
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.
FDW777 (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- The content you are restoring is significantly distorting what the references actually say. I suggest you start discussions on the talk pages of the relevant articles to see what, if any, content relating to this can be added to the articles. In at least one occasion the actually verifiable information was that someone had made one offensive tweet and apologised. FDW777 (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Should you again restore WP:BLP violating content without consensus I will be asking for sanctions to be applied. FDW777 (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
What sanctions? I am only new and you are censoring me? You have not provided me with an alternative that you deem suitable to print? do you work for Sinn Fein? If so I will be reporting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critchion (talk • contribs)
- It's not up to me to write your content for you. FDW777 (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Instead you're trolling me and being abusive. I think it's time you were reported for trying to distort the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critchion (talk • contribs)
- Some self-awareness about your own fact distortion would go a long way. FDW777 (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
You've been found out, a shinnerbot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critchion (talk • contribs)
Further discretionary sanctions notification
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 the Troubles. 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.
Arbitration enforcement
editSee Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
January 2022
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)- There is a lot going on here, WP:NOTHERE, WP:GREATWRONGS, etc leading to a short tenure that is all disruptive. The information at WP:AE lead us here, but the problems themselves are larger than one topic, so this block is done as a standard admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
There has to be some allowance, nothing I actually input was incorrect and in fact there is now an issue that these stories have not been reported on.
Critchion (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Critchion (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I agree with the decision to block you. Since you do not recognize your edits to be in the wrong, there are no grounds to lift this block. PhilKnight (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2022 (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.
I made some edits based on news stories last week and I linked them up with links to BBC etc. All were removed as the person did not want anything negative said about a political party in Northern Ireland. I did nothing wrong and this should be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critchion (talk • contribs)
- Just because something is verified with sources, that isn't a guarantee it will be included Otherwise, every biography would be full of every single newspaper claim that was negative. WP:DUE covers some of that, the problem wasn't that one edit, it is your behavior. Wikipedia isn't a free for all. Stuff like this [1] will get you blocked every time. You turned a disagreement into a personal attack against the editor. We don't allow that. Instead of having a discussion on the talk page (which can take a week or two), you jumped and attacked the editor. That isn't the only reason, but it is one reason you are blocked. If you can't go back and look at your own bad behavior, understand it, can made a choice to not repeat it, then you will never be unblocked.
- Another good example is [2], which isn't a problem by itself, but shows you have no idea how we do things here. We don't "report" tweets. We are an encyclopedia. We summarize content that was published by major reliable sources and try to present the information in a balanced way. We aren't "reporters", it isn't our job to "tell on them". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)