User talk:ACC 0011

Original research

Having reread the Susan Collins section the statements were self-evident. Despite this self-evidence references of the summation have been added.

I'm no Susan Collins fan. But regardless of what I think of her, the article must be written with a neutral point of view. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla is invited to assess the proposed edits to see that they are comments on content, and have been undone despite the content being verifiable from information in the same paragraph.

October 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.

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).

ACC 0011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Editor provides no reason nor explanation for block. Simply deleting information on a page is something editors have done without being blocked. This is an indefensible use of power and a good way to lose a donating member to wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not sure I'd have gone with an indefinite block here, especially in the absence of any warnings, but still ... you edit warred, you could have sought consensus on the article talk page but did not. Clearly disruptive. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2021 (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.

I've fixed your request for proper display; instead of overwriting it within the block notice, you should highlight and copy it when viewing this page, then open the edit window and paste it, followed by filling in the information. I won't review your request, but I will say that while as an editor I thank you for donating, donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation which operates the computers Wikipedia is on. The Foundation is not involved in day to day operations, and editors like us have nothing to do with the process. Thus, donating or withholding donations has no impact on operations here. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, note this user received several warnings. Sometimes they acknowledged the warnings by removing them from this talk page. Sometimes they edited the warnings to remove the icons. Sometimes they illicitly edited other people's signed comments. Either way, they clearly indicated they had read and understood the warnings. --Yamla (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ACC 0011, there is a path to you being unblocked. You need to demonstrate you understand WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW. For example, by agreeing to a WP:0RR restriction. There's a good chance a reviewing admin would request a topic ban on post-1932 American politics, given how disruptive you've been in that area. --Yamla (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, thank you for noting that Yamla is trigger happy. Also please note that this same editor did not bother to investigate the substance of the original edits, instead relying on procedure instead of accuracy. Presumably, if Yamla would have actually investigated they would have had to admit that the other editor was wrong in removing the edits, given that those edits simply restate what was already in the page. This is especially true since the editor has not bothered to describe why the post-1932 politics edits are wrong. Simply calling them 'disruptive' is a tacit admission that those edits have not been challenged on merit. Instead, the editors have relied on procedure that protects themselves above accuracy. This is a shameful display by Wikipedia editors that would rather embrace inaccuracy than investigate the validity of edits themselves. Ideally the editors would display a modicum of introspection and self assessment about their behavior, regrettably that does not seem to be the case here. It's clear that Yamla isn't here to build an accurate encyclopedia, instead opting to protect individuals who remove edits that re-state reality.

Daniel said nothing of the sort. If you aren't going to request unblock, there is nothing more to do here. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

You retain talk page access solely so you can contest your block, not so you can make personal attacks on other editors. --Yamla (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]