TJ&TheAmericanWay

Discussion at Talk:Andrea Tantaros#Malia Obama and Plan B

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Andrea Tantaros#Malia Obama and Plan B. Thanks. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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.  Bishonen | talk 11:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

Proof of the liberal left wing bias in Wikipedia. Ant attempt to remove "conservative" labels on political groups is blocked, as is any attempt to add "liberal" labels to groups. Any bias there? You got it.TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You miss the point of such alerts. Please read it again and take it literally. If you can't accept our policies and guidelines then there's not much point in your being here. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Please avoid tendentious editing, which I see you doing on several articles. Your edits to Family Research Council are positively promotional, under misleading edit summaries such as "adding clarity and accuracy". You remove well-sourced criticism and add the organization's own mission statement into the lead (in Wikipedia's "voice", as if it were a neutral description, which makes it worse). Organizations must typically be described from what reliable secondary sources have said about them and not from their own mission statement. Compare also Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements. Please help make Wikipedia articles more, not less, neutral. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

Funny ... my edits removed politically biased comments so yes, we will all make Wikipedia more neutral by issuing these kinds of threats that block neutrality. Usual liberal left wing Wikipedia nonsenseTJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I picked a particular example where I thought you might benefit from my commentary — or at least might address it — without going into the usual generalities about "liberal left wing Wikipedia bias". But apparently not. Please try to answer more responsively and particularly. Do you understand what I said about how putting an organization's mission statement into the article lead, in Wikipedia's voice, is a no-no? Or not? Or are you only here to mouth political slogans while waiting to be blocked? Bishonen | talk 18:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

Blocking, I was waiting for that, LOL. In the meantime, I'm busy reading the Washington Post article about Tim Kaine's son being arrested. I'm pretty sure that should be noted in Wikipedia.TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, since you have continued disrupting articles and haven't even attempted to engage with attempts to advise you above, you haven't had to wait long. If the block below has no deterrent effect on your style of editing, the next step will be a topic ban from American politics. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

Great. You do realize that you're proving my points don't you?TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 19:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm appealing my block to who? You?TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No, certainly not. If you use the {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} template in the way the yellow box indicates, the code it contains will call a previously uninvolved admin to this page to review the block and your unblock request. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

• Though I suppose it's simpler to evade your block by editing logged out? If you do it again, I'll increase your block to a month. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

"Though I suppose it's simpler to evade your block by editing logged out? If you do it again, I'll increase your block to a month."  ??? What on Earth are you talking about?TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

About this, coming right after this. Are you saying that wasn't you? Bishonen | talk 00:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

I had to explain this to another user yesterday. You, the person who set up this account, are blocked. Attempting to edit through an IP or another account is block evasion and will probably lead to a longer block and/or a topic ban. Sometimes we can detect such attempts simply by them being obvious, at other times we have to use WP:CheckUser Sso it's a bad idea and something you should avoid. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Unequivocally, not me. Absolutely not. I've never made an IP edit. BTW, you do realize that Kaine's son is in all the papers don't you?TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This whole thing is ridiculous. Me: I've been on Wikipedia for three years and have never had a problem with an administrator. I enjoy going to political articles and making edits to ensure a left-right balance. Have never been accused of anything disruptive until now. Situation: The admin blocked me for 72 hours even though I did nothing I have not done for three years. AND THEN he blocked me for 30 days because I logged out of my account which I always do as a good security practice. (I'm on a shared workstation). I was also accused of making an IP edit which I did not make although once my block was over I was definitely going to make the edit as the story (arrest of Tim Kaine's son) is in all the newspapers. Looks like somebody beat me to it. Request you remove both blocks. I have many more edits to make on "progressive" web sites. All of the edits will conform to Wikipedia policies, promise!!TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You claim two blocks. There's only one, a block for 72 hours. See here. As such, your unblock request doesn't make sense. You are very welcome to make another unblock request to clarify this second block. Yamla (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2017 (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.

Discretionary sanctions alert for biographies of living people

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.  Bishonen | talk 22:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned for six months from post-1932 American politics. Please read WP:TBAN to make sure you understand what a topic ban entails.

You have been sanctioned for persistent disruptive editing including WP:BLP violations in the topic area. Pretty much straight off a block for tendentious editing, you added these details to Tim Kaine, which have several times been removed from the article for obvious reasons IMO (read WP:BLP), and against clear consensus on the talkpage. This is how the talkpage discussion looked when you edited the article (there's more now, in reaction to your edit).

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 09:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

So now I've been blocked for six months after I made perfectly legitimate edits on an article. If other editors didn't like it they could have simply removed the comments and referred me to the talk page. I thought that was how Wikipedia worked, but apparently not.TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If you look more carefully at the sanction notice, you'll see it says "You are topic banned for six months from post-1932 American politics. Please read WP:TBAN to make sure you understand what a topic ban entails". I don't know how to put it any more clearly. You have not been blocked, you have been topic banned. Please read WP:TBAN to see what that means. WP:TBAN is only ten lines. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC).

I'll rewrite the example given there. a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "post-1932 American politics", they are not only forbidden to edit the article post-1932 American politics, but also everything else that has to do with post-1932 American politics, such as:

• post-1932 American politics-related articles and lists, and their talk pages. This includes articles such as Family Research Council and Truth (2015 film). For biographies of living people it means you cannot edit the article or talk page of politicians, political staff, political commentators, etc. You may not edit any sections or add material to other biographies that touch on post-1932 American politics.
• post-1932 American politics-related categories;
• post-1932 American politics-related project pages, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/American politics ;
• post-1932 American politics-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with post-1932 American politics: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
• discussions or suggestions about post-1932 American politics-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion, a discussion on sourcing a relevant article, etc, also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes).

Please note the word 'broadly'. Don't try to find wriggle room. I hope this helps you make sure you don't violate your topic ban. As you've been told, you aren't blocked. You will of course be blocked if you violate your ban. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)