User talk:A girl in Latvia

Welcome!

Hello, A girl in Latvia, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

––FormalDude (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

– Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert

Hi. Please self-revert this edit. The Hunter Biden article is subject to a 24 hour BRD restriction. If your content has been reverted by another editor, you must open a discussion on the talk page discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message before any reinstating of your edit can be made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When making demands from other editors, it's best to link to the rule you're citing and to describe how the rule has been violated. Making demands while also summarizing rules leaves too much room for confusion. Lexlex (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the summary is that there's no convenient or obvious wikilink shortcut to this sanction. However please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics#cite note-4 for a description of how the sanction works. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit has now been undone by another editor. Per the wikilink in my last message, do not restore this again without opening a discussion on the article's talk page to discuss your edit, and a minimum of 24 hours passing. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link you cited says administrators can get involved, however this says you are not an administrator. I guess I'm confused as to why you are writing in such a way on a user talk page. Have administrators sanctioned such efforts or are you doing this activity on your own? Lexlex (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any user is welcome to help via discussion or userpage warning to guide new users when they may be in violation of policy. I see zero issue with the comments User:Sideswipe9th has made on this page. BusterD (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor can give advice, make requests, or issue warnings to any other editor. In this case, as an uninvolved editor, I was making a request that A girl in Latvia follow the long standing 24 hour BRD restriction placed on the Hunter Biden article. Their edit had already been removed by another editor, and their restoration of it was not in line with the restriction. I was making this request as a courtesy, as violations of that sanction by other editors in the recent past have seen them temporarily blocked from editing, and I wanted to avoid that if possible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between giving advice and making demands. This user is less than a year old and has very few edits—and you are a seasoned, experienced editor. WP:BITE is a good reminder that we were all new once, and treating people with kindness and respect, especially when their first language may not be English, is something we should always keep in mind.Lexlex (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reread Sideswipe9th's OP. It was kind and respectful advice to a new user unaware of WP's sometimes complex rules in contentious topics. W:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment. The exchange was needlessly aggressive, used demands instead of polite requests (e.g. 'you must', 'do not'), and was written from an authoritarian perspective rather than as from one helpful co-editor to another. We can do better. Lexlex (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certain things in contentious topics are are indeed "musts". Better to learn that before you it's too late if one edits in highly contentious areas. OTOH, look at your own edits here as they appear to not quite show an understanding the policies. You do not have to be an admin to politely warn someone that they are subject to actions. And, the warnings were polite. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When writing to seasoned colleagues, shorthand and directness is usually expected appreciated. However, when newbies are being subjected to micro-abuse—even unintentionally-I'll say something.Lexlex (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The warning was very polite considering it dealt with someone knowingly disregarding the result of an RFC dealing with a minor-aged BLP on a contentious article under active sanctions. WP:BLP and WP:CTOP also contains a lot of musts and do nots. After receiving a CTOP notice in May, they're expected to have familiarized themselves with the policies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved administrator, let me be as clear as possible. if you violate the enforced BRD sanction again, you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved administrator, do you sanction what is essentially deputy, pseudo admin behavior from non-admin editors? If so, how do you control it if/when they they overstep? Is there an area for talking about this? Lexlex (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings from other editors are a common way to inform people of issues with their editing. Plainly letting someone know they violated a sanction isn't a problem. If you believe there is a behavioral issue it can be raised at WP:ANI, or if the editing is in a contentious topic then WP:AE is an acceptable venue. In this circumstance it is exceedingly unlikely that there would be any consensus that the warning this editor was problematic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you continue with the pointy editing and disruptively refusing to accept the overwhelming consensus at Talk:Hunter Biden you will be blocked from that article and talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you went through my edit history and decided I was "pointy" on a months-old, completely unrelated edit. Then, you used that information to threaten me on a user talk page. How do I get my administrator friends to do this for me when I'm losing an argument? (They've always told me that's not their role.) Lexlex (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a warning to A girl in Latvia. If you check the indent level, it's a reply to my first warning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For someone whose first edits date from 2005, User:Lexlex seems to misunderstand badly how WP:Assume good faith works. Wikipedians are welcome to talk about the article, page improvement, and our disagreements. We normally avoid talking about the editor, but we do talk about actions and behaviors. We quote policy and guidelines to support our position. We should always assume folks are editing in good faith. If any good-faith editor sees an issue (in this case a new editor who may be unaware of page restrictions), they are welcome to point out that issue. It's irrelevant the editor may not be a sysop. Such warnings not considered strictly administrative work, though as a workproduct of WP:ARBCOM and as such corrective in tone, the WP:Contentious topics page mostly gives instruction to administrators (who are often called upon to help in such cases). In their edits in this thread, Lexlex seems to be indicating User:Sideswipe9th has done something inappropriate. This is incorrect; they did not make demands. Sideswipe9th invited the change, using Please self-revert this edit (with link to diff). Sideswipe9th explained the policy. In this thread four different editors have disagreed with Lexlex's take on this. And then Lexlex jumps to the conclusion User:ScottishFinnishRadish has judged them personally, threatened them, and then queries how they can get my admin friends to act in Lexlex's favor, when SFR wasn't even talking to Lexlex. Lexlex's admin friends might talk to Lexlex about Wikipedia's WP:Civility pillar. BusterD (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2023 (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).

A girl in Latvia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why am I being blocked? for using salty language in a talk page? Calling an editorial consensus that is not supported by policy bullshit is not a violation of WP:CIVILITY. There was no warning prior to the block. A girl in Latvia (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, you're a sock puppet, so your request to be indefinitely blocked is granted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2023 (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.

Incorrect. I asked you to follow the behavioral guideline assume good faith of other editors, and you continued the unacceptable behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also gave warnings for related behavior in the section above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning was about Pointy edits, not about using salty language, as I had not used salty language at that point. But that's OK. I will never edit Wikipedia again.

Fuck you. Go ahead and block me indefinitely. I don't give a shit any more. A girl in Latvia (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you take some time to cool off. Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Please honor my wishes and block my account for eternity. A girl in Latvia (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]