User talk:Archer Rafferty

Welcome!

Hello, Archer Rafferty, 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 take 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.

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! Drmies (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

November 2016

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. And the edit summary as well. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not my problem the majority of your editing staff can't properly manage an article without their immature political positions blocking whatever little talent they have. User:Archer Rafferty (talk)

Wikipedia does not work that way. There is no "editing staff". The rest is insult, including that stuff you removed (and "trigger", that's immature), and if you use that language again I will topic-ban you from the Donald Trump article, hoping that this will improve the editing atmosphere in the article and on the talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're going to have to specific exactly what "language" I used that apparently broke your rules or what you are attempting to convey won't fully break through. By your logic, calling me immature would break the rules you're currently enforcing. Food for thought Ms. Admin. User:Archer Rafferty (talk)

I didn't call you immature. Please read our policies, and my words, more carefully. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump infobox

Hi there. You previously participated in a previous conversation about the best way to reflect Donald Trump's business career in his infobox. You might be interested in an active RfC on this topic. Edge3 (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at /r/The Donald. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a blockage. Thank you. That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nantucket your source is flawed with zero evidence to back up your claims that /r/The_Donald is racist, I'm completely justified in my undoing of your edit. If you continue this I'm going to call in moderation. Archer Rafferty (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Archer_Rafferty reported by User:That man from Nantucket (Result: ). Thank you. That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Now I was not acting in bad faith nor was I doing anything close to vandalism, the user who reported me also accused me of various other practices such as Wikipedia:Tendentious editing which I wasn't and he had no proof either, just accused me. I've never done this before either nor has this circumstance ever occurred, I see this 24 hour block from editing as unjust when I had no bad intent and I never even got a warning. I now know not to do what I did, but I feel it didn't require disciplinary action to this degree when I halted all editing during this investigation. The user who reported me brought up charges of past disputes I've had over sources, but none of this involved me breaking the policy I'm being charged for. Also, now the user who reported me is bordering WP:STALK and commenting on former discussions I've been involved in, he's had a history of this btw. Please reconsider this block. Archer Rafferty (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were unequivocally over the 3RR limit in the case as outlined above, so the block is justified. I've also looked over your editing history, and note that you have a distinct focus on Trump-related articles and topics, and often find yourself at odds with other editors, including making comments on political views, bias, etc. I strongly advise you step back from political articles and work in other areas of the encyclopedia after the block has expired; should you continue on your current path, further issues may continue to crop up. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:36, 10 January 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Holy fuck, I can't believe this stupid ass website allows a man to stalk me, insult me, and then have their administrators go "Oh you focus too much on political articles", you know what, Fuck you Tony Fox you mentally-handicapped goon, Fuck you SomeGuy you dumb high-and-mighty cunt, and Fuck you Nantucket you obsessive, creepy, disturbed little man. I'm done with this website. Archer Rafferty (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block increased to indefinite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2017 (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.