User talk:PZP-003

January 2018

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.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Peter Strzok. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003, you really do need to be careful. "please stop altering my edits"?? Seriously? That's what we do here. Your identical edits on two articles did not improve them. Instead you mention Clinton as the client twice. That's unnecessary. My edit streamlined the text so it flowed better and mentioned each client only once. You have been warned above by Coffee for misuse of talk pages, but that warning also covers things like edit warring and uncollaborative editing.

Your response to an edit warring warning is unconstructive. Edit warring is not allowed here, even if you're right. I suggest you self-revert in both places (also here) since you have no valid rationale for your edits. Any problems can be fixed without restoring your awkward edits. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

On another topic, I see all your edits are marked as "minor", even when they aren't. Please don't do that, as it's seen as deceptive. Just change the setting in your "preferences". In reality, it is never required that you mark any edit as minor. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nunes memo

You're a brand new account. Take the time to read and absorb Wikipedia policies about Verification and Neutral Point of View and don't accuse experienced editors of bias without specific edit-related concerns you would like to discuss. See

SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

ASD

You have reinserted challenged content into the ASD article without addressing the central problem and engaging on the talk page. These are, as has repeatedly been stated in edit summaries, ad hominem attacks on the personnel and not criticisms or discussions of the organization and its activities. Please undo your reinsertion of the material now captioned "criticisms" and argue your case for inclusion on the talk page. I'll also note that "criticism sections" in general are discouraged on Wikipedia. We prefer to raise criticisms next to the facts to which they apply. In this case, of course, there are none because these are just personal smears. Please undo your re-insertion of this text. SPECIFICO talk 03:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry no ad hominem attacks or smears, just legitimate criticism from two well respected journalists both who have 25+ years of experience in reporting. Have a nice day. PZP-003 (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. please stop trying to continuously censor Wikipedia....just because you personally disagree with something doesn't mean you get to label it a "smear" or "undue" and then remove the information from the article. PZP-003 (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think, from your reply, that you're fully aware of the meaning of ad hominem. Please have a looksee: [1]. The text you've twice inserted without discussion is making statements about the people employed by ASD, and not about their actions or the organization. They are ad hominem and not valid comments on the ASD page. They might be suitable for those peoples' biographies, but not the ASD page. SPECIFICO talk 03:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections‎

That article is subject to discretionary sanctions, and you are currently engaging in an edit war. If you don't quit adding that disputed content to the article, some admin is going block you from editing. Geogene (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Specifically, you're in violation of the 1RR restriction. Unless you self revert immediately, I'll report you for a block. Geogene (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to ask other editors to make the edit for you, and stating that you will wait 24 hours and then continue making the edit is just begging for an edit warring block [2]. You are already in a blockable position. Don't make things worse. Meters (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent advice/warning from Meters. You don't have to break the bright line 3RR/24 hr rule to get blocked. Slow edit warring is blockable, even if its only one edit per day. The intention to keep adding that content, or enlist the help of others to participate in that slow edit war, is a blockable offense. I see you are now blocked for 24 hours, which is far less than deserved. You're lucky. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions block

Hello, PZP-003. I know that you are aware of the Discretionary Sanctions on articles about American politics, because you were warned about them in January. Articles under Discretionary Sanctions warn, at the top of the edit page, “You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.” The reason for these limits - no more than one reversion of other people's edits in a 24-hour period, and no reinserting material that someone else has removed unless you take it to the talk page and get consensus - is to prevent edit warring at these highly visible and controversial articles. But you violated these rules four times today. In this edit] at the article Trump–Russia dossier, you violated the Discretionary Sanctions by restoring material which had been challenged (by removing it). At the article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections you actually did it three times, here, here, and here. This blatant violation of the Discretionary Sanctions calls for a block, and I am accordingly blocking you from editing for 24 hours. The purpose of this block, and this explanation, is to make you aware that the Discretionary Sanctions are real and are enforced. Any future violations will result in a longer block. --MelanieN (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: I see that you self-reverted the fourth such addition. That suggests to me that you may be willing to abide by the rules now, or at least the WP:1RR rule. I suspect you still don't understand the rule about the need to obtain consensus before you restore controversial material. Let's talk about that. --MelanieN (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW - although you are blocked from most editing, you can still edit your own talk page here, if you want to talk about it. --MelanieN (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So I guess the way Wikipedia works is even if the information added is reliably sourced, a user will be blocked if other editors gang up on that editor, who's accurate reliably sourced info they don't like, gets added into an article. Yeah, that seems fair. By the way MelanieN you never answered the questions from my initial post. Here they are below (I re-worded them a little and added some points), can you please reply so I can better understand the way Wikipedia functions, thanks. PZP-003 (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Being right does not mean that you cannot get blocked. I think the arguments being made for removing criticism from Alliance for Securing Democracy are wrong (since when is "ad hominem smear" a policy?), but when a majority of editors active at any given time agree on a particular edit (in this case, removing criticism), that's how it goes. Take up the issue on the talk page, explain your arguments clearly, and maybe other editors will agree to the changes you're proposing. Realistically, in American politics-related articles, this probably won't happen, but it's the only way. Wikipedia is reliable for things like mathematics or chemistry, but you have to take articles about present-day politics with more than just a grain of salt, once you've seen how the sausage is made. There's no use getting too invested in it. It is what it is.

@MelanieN: Not that the above diffs you list above don't show edit warring, but you are involved at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as you told me once when I asked you to intervene on the talk page there, in what was a pretty clear case of sanctionable behavior. There is an exception in WP:INVOLVED for things like obvious vandalism, where it could be assumed that other admins would take the same action. However, I think that would have held equally in the diff I link above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thucydides I hear where you are coming from but the issue I have is what is there to really discuss when everything is reliably sourced and accurate? If you study the users who removed all the RS info that I added, everything that they post is biased/slanted in one direction (i.e. Trump is horrible and he must have colluded with the Russians). There is still very much an open debate about that (not the horrible part, lol, but the collusion part). Yet it seems everyone who edits on these articles only edits in one direction. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work as far as I am aware. For the record, I am no fan of Trump's policies even though it may appear that way from my edits. As a center-left person I probably disagree with 80%+ of his political stances. The point is that there is no balance any more on Wikipedia: it is all in one direction (again, Trump is a secret Russian agent who is controlled by Putin). PZP-003 (talk) 06:37, March 17, 2018‎ (UTC)

There's no answer to the problem you're encountering. Edit warring isn't an answer - you'll simply get blocked. Wikipedia's policies don't really have a good way of dealing with a situation in which a majority of editors want to tilt an article in a certain direction. That's why articles about highly contentious topics - especially in present-day politics - are not to be trusted. Wikipedia's model works well for articles about copper smelting, influenza or the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, but the second you touch an article that might get a large number of people in the present day riled up, it's a different story. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

"wikipedia's policies don't really have a good way of dealing with a situation in which a majority of editors want to tilt an article in a certain direction" ...thank you for having the decency to acknowledge this. PZP-003 (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please explain why I have to wait 24 hours plus "take it to the talk page and get consensus" to re-insert the info if it has been reliably sourced and accurate? Is it because other editors here don't like the information I added. Why would they change their mind if I take it to the talk page?? They will probably use same bullying tactics they seem to be employing right now by undoing the edits. Why do they get to censor Wikipedia, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an open balanced friendly website where people can contribute to articles? Just for the record, everything I added is balanced, accurate, and taken from reliable sources. PZP-003 (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You have to wait 24 hours because you engaged in edit warring after receiving a specific warning. Edit warring is not allowed even if you are convinced that you are correct. If you studiously avoid edit warring in the future, then you will never be blocked for that again. Content in our articles is developed by consensus among all editors interested in that article, and we achieve consensus by discussing things on the article's talk page. Hollering "censorship" never works here because no government makes these decisions. This is a private website with its own policies and guidelines developed by the community. You can contribute but only if you follow our policies and guidelines. That is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

PZP, these rules - installed by the Arbitration Committee which is as close as we get here to a definitive judge - are imposed for subjects that are so controversial that special editing restrictions are necessary to keep them from becoming war zones. Those restrictions apply to everyone, from brand-new users to administrators. I think you now understand about the "wait 24 hours before doing it again" rule, known as the WP:1RR or one-revert rule; that's pretty straightforward. A harder one to understand is the "controversial material" rule: that if you add something to the article, and someone (more commonly several someones) remove it, that means it is controversial. There will have to be discussion and some kind of consensus before it can be added again. Here's what made me think you may not understand this yet: when you self-reverted your third addition, you indicated in your edit summary you thought you would be able to add it again when 24 hours have passed. No, you can't. You can't add it again until it has been discussed and some kind of agreement has been reached that it is valid material for the article. So I would suggest, while you have this time-out from editing, that you figure out what you are going to say on the talk page, how you are going to defend the material or argue for its inclusion. Then tomorrow when you are able to edit again, take it to the talk pages of both articles and start a discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN thanks for the advice but you seem to still be missing the point so I will repeat it here again: the issue that I have is what is there to discuss for "consensus" when if you study the users who removed all the RS info that I added, everything that they post is biased/slanted in one direction (i.e. Trump is horrible and he must have colluded with the Russians). There is still very much an open debate about that (not the horrible part, lol, but the collusion part). Yet it seems everyone who edits on these articles only edits in one direction (these are not objective fair users, they have an agenda that should be clear for all to see based on how they immediately remove any reliably sourced information that other users like myself contribute to the article). That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work as far as I am aware. For the record, I am no fan of Trump's policies even though it may appear that way from my edits. As a center-left person I probably disagree with 80%+ of his political stances. The point is that there is no balance any more on Wikipedia: ALL DATA GOES IN ONE DIRECTION i.e. Trump is a secret Russian agent who is controlled by Putin. PZP-003 (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes but the issue is what is there to discuss when everything is reliably sourced and accurate? That is what I'm confused about. And I am not "hollering" censorship...there is clearly censorship going on here. Just look at the editors who removed all the RS info that I added. Everything they post is biased/slanted in one direction (i.e. Trump is horrible and he must have colluded with the Russians). There is still very much an open debate about that (not the horrible part, lol, but the collusion part). Yet it seems everyone who edits on these articles only edits in one direction. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work as far as I am aware. For the record, I am no fan of Trump's policies even though it may appear that way from my edits. As a center-left person I probably disagree with 80%+ of his political stances. The point is that there is no balance any more on Wikipedia: it is all in one direction (again, Trump is a secret Russian agent who is controlled by Putin). PZP-003 (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Read the talk page. The info you want to add has already been added under " House". User MelanieN added it before your edits occurred. It's not ready for the lede yet, per talk page conversations. Read the talk page and it will make sense. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

When you add entire paragraphs written completely in a bold font, that is the functional equivalent of hollering. Your fellow editors will usually interpret it that way. If you do not engage in talk page discussions, you cannot be a successful editor of controversial articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. That's good advice from Cullen328. Also, copying whole paragraphs from above, and then bolding them, does not give them, or you, more credibility.

You state your observation as an accusation: "Just look at the editors who removed all the RS info that I added. Everything they post is biased/slanted in one direction..." Don't accuse editors in that way. AGF. There may be a legitimate reason why it appears that way. Maybe they are depending on RS which have that bias and slant. Truth is not centrist. It tends to be to one side or the other, depending on the historical context. Sometimes left-wingers are more right, and at other times right-wingers are. In this case, all the evidence and intelligence reports tend toward the Trump administration hiding a whole lot of activities, lying a lot, hiding lots of meetings, and when it's revealed, it often turns out to be illegal and/or shady activities.

Only the Trump/GOP/Putin-friendly sources (Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Infowars, RT, Sputnik, etc.) say otherwise with their cover-up/distraction/conspiracy theories which fact checkers keep on debunking. Those are unreliable sources for political content, so don't use them, and frankly, don't even read them, except for research (What are the fringe wingnuts saying?) When doing such research, be very careful, because what they write is written to convince you of false ideas. Will you be able to resist that pernicious influence? Only very well-informed people can live up to the following: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

So there is, after all, a reason why the content added by experienced editors has that "bias" and "slants" that way. It's because that is the slant found in RS. Unreliable sources have a different slant, and we don't blindly cater to such sources here. Editors who constantly resist and complain about that content are revealing that they are imbibers of ideas from unreliable sources, and such editors create problems and often get blocked.

I have a "message for fringe political editors" on my talk page: If your personal POV is based on unreliable sources, unlike the ones we use in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Trump–Russia dossier, then you will likely disagree with those articles and run afoul of our disdain for editors who push pro Trump/GOP/Russia conspiracy theories. Don't be surprised when such views also violate WP:TALK and get redacted. Just sayin'... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I confess I've only read about half of this, but as of yesterday you were still asking, Yes but the issue is what is there to discuss when everything is reliably sourced and accurate?
Has anybody explained to you that reliable sourcing is only the first of several important content filters? Content policy is not so simple that we can just add anything that's reliably sourced; it would be great if it were. This concept is in policy at WP:ONUS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NPOV, etc. This misunderstanding may be the cause of much of your frustration. My suggestion would be to recognize that it takes years to even begin to understand all this stuff (I still have a lot to learn after almost 5 years and 41,000 edits), to learn policy as quickly as your time permits, and to take a less aggressive stance against editors with many times your experience until you have a lot more of it. Many times a revert of your edit will not mean bad faith or uncontrolled bias on the other editor's part but rather a lack of knowledge on yours. The best editors will point you to the specific relevant policy, but in the end the responsibility for your Wikipedia education is yours, not ours. Questions will get more help than accusations. Happy editing, and feel free to hit me up on my talk page if I can be of any help. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss with all do respect this whole thing makes no sense. A user (BullRangifer) posted the following just above your last previous response: "I have a message for fringe political editors on my talk page: If your personal POV is based on unreliable sources, unlike the ones we use in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Trump–Russia dossier, then you will likely disagree with those articles and run afoul of our disdain for editors who push pro Trump/GOP/Russia conspiracy theories" This is an editor who you say has "many times the experience" but he/she clearly has a POV political agenda. I always assumed that this wasn't allowed on WP, especially in combination with that same editor removing other editors RS/NPOV contributions. Also since when does a user get to just decide what sources are reliable or unreliable, I thought there were rules for that. You also say that I should take a "less aggressive stance against editors". The problem with that is I am not the one who is immediately removing any RS/NPOV information added into articles that I don't like (and believe me there is a lot of it in some of these articles) and then claiming WP:CONSENSUS in coordination with other users who share the same ideological politically driven censorship tendencies. How is this blatant hypocritical behavior allowed on Wikipedia? PZP-003 (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There are processes and policies that go a long way toward dealing with problem editors, starting with WP:CONSENSUS. Edit warring is not one of them and will generally get you indefinitely blocked if you make a habit of it, no matter how righteous your position. How to use these processes and policies effectively is one of the things that it takes years to learn, and you can't expect to win many of these battles when you're unarmed. Even when the processes and policies are understood and used, they won't always work because they are far from perfect.
Wikipedia is a self-governed community unlike anything most of us have ever been exposed to in the real world, so weird shit happens constantly. It takes a lot of adjustment, a lot of patience, and a good measure of resignation. Give it time and don't expect to understand things today—or this year. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003, you're missing the point. It isn't my personal political POV which determines how I edit, but what I find in RS. Yes, we all have POV on many issues, and that's okay, as long as it doesn't influence actual editing. In the current political environment, most RS happen to support my POV, or, to be more exact, my personal POV is formed by them. That's the order it occurs for me, IOW I allow RS to change my opinions. I also depend a lot on fact checkers. I know when someone is lying, and Trump does it more than any other public person fact checkers have ever encountered. You might learn more by reading the full section on my talk page: A message for fringe political editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You said "I allow RS to change my opinions" but if someone adds RS/NPOV content that leans in another direction from you politically why do you go and remove it? PZP-003 (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Alliance for Securing Democracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 06:05, March 17, 2018 (UTC)

Please explain this

Why did you insert this in the ASD article? This is an unsourced opinion and in addition it misrepresents the nature of ASD. I cited the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines to you above and others have advised you to go slow until you understand how WP editing works. Articles that relate to recent events or controversial subjects are among the most difficult to edit constructively. I suggest you consider focusing on other topics of interest to you until you are more familiar with the Policies and Guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC) (Content deleted by PZP-003 restored by me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC))

I only deleted that content because SPECIFICO made it seem like I intentionally added it into the ASD article when it was an honest mistake. The proof of that is I immediately removed it one minute later. Stop trying to smear me by doing crap like this. PZP-003 (talk) 23:36, March 18, 2018‎

Never alter other editors' comments as you did to SPECIFICO's and mine. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If you read my edit summary (which apparently you didn't) I explained that I added it by mistake and removed it immediately. Why are you even asking me about this when I removed the information myself? PZP-003 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Also it was not sourced because it was an error and was immediately removed by me. Please stop exaggerating and making things up like Volunteer Marek and other users have been doing. PZP-003 (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You're getting close to another block. First, your edit summary for that edit said "(advisory members)". Second, you should not edit other people's comments on your talk page. Removing part of a comment changes its meaning and is confusing. Third, you should not make personal attacks on other editors such as your reference to Volunteer Marek and me above. There's no need to rush into your editing here. Please take the time to read the Policies and Guidelines. Otherwise, you will continue to get frustrating feedback. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I have restored that content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I only deleted that content because SPECIFICO made it seem like I intentionally added it into the ASD article when it was an honest mistake. The proof of that is I immediately removed it one minute later. Please stop trying to smear me by repeatedly doing crap like this. PZP-003 (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "smearing" you. I only made proper refactoring cleanups. Just housework, with no comments about you. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You know what you are doing...nice try though. It's sad that people like you are able to abuse Wikipedia like this. Have a good night. PZP-003 (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you're talking about. Look at the diffs about what happened in this thread. I made no comments that can be construed as "smearing". Just housework. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

OK fair enough, you may be well-intentioned in regard to this specific issue. The problem is it gets very confusing because people like you, Specifico, Marek and 3 or 4 other users all edit and attack other users (constantly removing accurate objective RS and NPOV info but selectively keeping other info i.e. anti-Trump) in the same aggressive hyper-partisan manner so please forgive me if I made a mistake. PZP-003 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cambridge Analytica. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - MrX 🖋 15:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Warning - please consider.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Alliance for Securing Democracy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Advice

This is some friendly advice. You're about to get a very rough lesson in how Wikipedia American politics-related articles work. Do you see the various warnings that have been pasted on your page? The editors posting those warnings know that because you're a new account, they're technically required to warn you about the rules before they report you to the admins. You can see here that SPECIFICO is already talking about getting you banned (without pinging you, of course, which they're supposed to do when they discuss you elsewhere on Wikipedia).

I know it's frustrating to see people dismissing every source they don't like as "fringe," but if you respond angrily or by calling their neutrality into question, they will use that as a reason to get you blocked, and they will likely be successful. Blocks are escalating, so after your 24-hour block, they'll be arguing for a much longer block. Next time, that block will be used as an argument for a third, longer block, and so on. It doesn't matter if they attack you first. Basically, you're not on even terrain, and if you really care about contributing to Wikipedia, it's important not to let yourself get dragged into the personal fights, which will end with you (but not your more experienced opponents) being blocked.

You have to take the whole spectacle with a bit of detached humor. You can argue your position, but don't overdo it, don't attack other people, and try to ignore it when they attack you. You should to be aware that there are already several people, as you can see above, who are eager to get you banned, and who will almost certainly go to WP:ANI or WP:AE within the next few days. As I said earlier, Wikipedia is reliable for some things, but not for controversial current events. You've seen the level of quality of the talk-page discussions that determine what ends up in these articles. It is what it is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"basically, you're not on even terrain...it's important not to let yourself get dragged into the personal fights, which will end with you (but not your more experienced opponents) being blocked" I thought Wikipedia was supposed to treat every editor equally. So you are saying that editors who are abusive and biased but have been editing longer get away with their behavior, but other users who have only been around for weeks or months get banned? Is that the way Wikipedia is supposed to operate? PZP-003 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thucydides411 has "advised" that you adopt their battleground view of and approach to Wikipedia editing. They have presented it as fact rather than their opinion, which might tell you something. Probably you will adopt their view or not depending on how you approach real life, so I won't spend a lot of time trying to sway you to the alternative view. Just be aware that the alternative view exists, that there are plenty of experienced editors who subscribe to it, and that you have a choice like any other editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty stunning reversal of what I said, Mandruss. I've said not to get dragged into the fights, not to respond to personal attacks, and to keep a sense of humor about it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if I misrepresented what you said. I keep forgetting that my view of things as seamless continuums of shades of gray, rather than blacks and whites, is a minority view. But, for the same reason I don't "inform" people about people I know before they meet them, I feel that a new editor should be left to independently form their own view of Wikipedia culture, to whatever extent possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I may have violated some sort of prime directive, but glancing at the above talk page sections, and seeing this editor's interactions on the pages on my watchlist, I have a strong suspicion that the way they're about to form their own view of Wikipedia culture is through WP:AE, WP:ANI, or some similar board. Hence my advice to cool down, avoid personal attacks, and not to try to force things. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Could be it's a difference between involved (you) and uninvolved (me). Involved is less objective, uninvolved is less informed. Not sure which is worse. I do get pretty harsh with edit warring new editors when I'm involved, but I don't know that that's a good thing. Love to talk about it over a beer, or in front of one. Not sure much is being accomplished here, so let's trade imaginary civility barnstars and part ways. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003 Many of those who are warning you here, or writing on each other's talk pages about banning you, have been blocked far more times than Thucydides411 for their battleground and Tendentious editing, something that Mandruss (who is by the way an otherwise excellent editor) has either not noticed or failed to mention. Nevertheless Thucydides411 is wholly correct: if you respond in-kind to any personal attack or provocation you will be blocked, but those who attacked you will not. I'd also suggest cooling it if you plan to edit at Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"if you respond in-kind to any personal attack or provocation you will be blocked, but those who attacked you will not" - That makes no sense...why is that?? So these other users can insult me and just make things up and no admins will ban them but I will get banned for responding to them??? PZP-003 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@PZP-003: that's not the way it's supposed to work, but that's how it does work. In theory Wikipedia should be one big and collaborative editorial room. For that reason it's fair to expect, whatever the context, that you refrain from personal attacks even if you believe you've been attacked yourself. And speaking of how Wikipedia is "supposed" to operate, there are not supposed to be sockpuppet accounts, but there often are, and other editors might (even rightly) suspect you are one. This is a conflict-filled place, and that's just the way it is, sadly. -Darouet (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003: I understand your frustration but advise you to tone it down. No good will come from forcefully confronting established editors regardless of your edits. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history at Alliance for Securing Democracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Specifico

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. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Closed with the restriction noted. Talk page posts "commenting on the content, not the contributor" would be good. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Diff of 1RR restriction for two weeks -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Calling someone a "liar" is a personal attack, and guy, I provided the links, all of the them: THEY'RE LITERALLY THE SAME. Identical. Do that again and I'll see that you're blocked. Calton | Talk 06:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction

Sorry to be posting here again but I have to address your edit summary here. You state:

" VolunteerMarek made false claim that I violated 1RR discretionary sanctions which is clearly a lie. I only restored the addition ONCE, I'm trying to obey the rules on WP please stop"

No. This is false. I did NOT claim that you violated 1RR. I explicitly claimed that you violated the "consensus required - don't restore challenged material" discretionary sanction. That is the second paragraph in my comment. So no, I didn't "lie" and you really need to cut that kind of commentary out unless you can back it up.

If you really are "trying to obey the rules on WP" then you will self-revert this. ThanksVolunteer Marek (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I already did it before seeing this. 1RR does not apply on that article. Consensus must be reached before restoration. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You are both incorrect (as usual you continue to lie, then try to make it look like I am the problem). I just checked and 1RR does apply on that article. Please stop lying. PZP-003 (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about my clumsy wording. 1RR does apply for ordinary editing, but restoration is not included in that:

• Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

You are constantly running into problems in your editing. Other, far more experienced, editors are not accepting your edits for a number of reasons. A big one is that your editing is clearly POV driven and not informed by RS, but rather by fringe and unreliable sources. That causes you to make tweaks and word changes which support the Putin/Trump narrative, rather than what most RS say.

When your edits are reverted, don't fight back, and don't return a day later to attempt the same thing again. Edit wars can be quick, and they can also be slow, over many days. Slow edit warring is also wrong and can get you blocked. Use talk pages to discuss these problems. Don't use the article and edit summaries for that purpose.

One time can be chalked up to your inexperience, but these repetitions indicate that you are an edit warrior, and they get blocked and banned, especially since these articles are under Discretionary sanctions. Be extremely careful.

And stop calling other editors liars. That's a personal attack. You must WP:AGF. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop smearing my good faith editing by using McCarthyite tactics e.g. "you make tweaks and word changes which support the Putin/Trump narrative". I'm not supporting any "narrative". My edits are NPOV using accepted RS...just trying to contribute to WP and add balance to articles, that's all. There seems to be a blatant and clear political agenda certain users have (specifically BullRangifer, VolunteerMarek, Specifico, but there are others) where any edits (including NPOV and RS content) that doesn't fit into their anti-Trump narrative it will be immediately removed (these users often remove content for dubious reasons...just check their edit histories and also their comments on numerous talk pages).

You stated "your editing is clearly POV driven and not informed by RS, but rather by fringe and unreliable sources" Please show me one "fringe" or "unreliable" source that I have used. Users like you seem to think any RS that isn't CNN or WaPo or NYTimes, etc, isn't really RS. I don't understand why these people are allowed to edit and censor WP when it should be pretty clear to other users/admins what's going on.

Edit warriors get blocked and banned, even when they are right. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC) @PZP-003:

He gives the same angry lecture to everyone apparently. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

LOL....I'm sure BullRangifer must be a nice person in real life. PZP-003 (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)