User talk:PediaWikiMaster

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RohanRidesAgain, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Keri (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Your apology of an unwarranted accusation will be appreciated. Leniency is shown to those acknowledge their mistake and take ownership of it. PediaWikiMaster (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of discretionary sanctions for pages related to Abortion, such as Frederick S. Jaffe, which you have recently edited.
The details of these sanctions are described at WP:ARBAB.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Keri (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

You had the opportunity to comment at the DRN. The moderator - and I'm in agreement with them - said that your interpretation of the memo is WP:FRINGE. Waiting until the DRN is closed and then reverting the article back to your preferred state appears disruptive and tendentious. Keri (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I also have a life and am not waiting on your every move to "comment." The moderator and yourself are missing the point altogether. My comments did not have anything to do with my interpretation of the memo. I simply commented that Rohan presented factual quotes and evidence in his posts and that his edit should be allowed. Suggesting that Rohan's words added a more balanced view of both sides does not require my interpretation of the memo. If both you and the moderator are focused on my interpretation of the memo, it's no wonder we are confused. I didn't give my interpretation of the memo.  If your decision was based on my interpretation of the memo, then for multiple reasons, again, the edit and your decision is wrong.

PediaWikiMaster (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h for edit-warring--Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC). 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 appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}.[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).

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

Request reason:

My post simply showed that the moderator and whomever else used improper reasoning when refusing to consider my initial words. This is called reasoning. Rohan posted quotes and facts, but these facts were ignored and suppressed. My post was not about my interpretation which was supposedly the reason the edit was refused. Removing the edit for improper reasons should result in the moderator being blocked for using personal bias against users and being involved in "edit warring." Consider the reasoning: User 1 makes a post. User 2 responds. User 1 "undoes" User 2's work, and the circle begins. Wiki said that material is to be "neutral." In order for a page to be neutral both sides need to be represented. For a moderator to become involved in deciding what a "useful contribution" is when they are ignorant of the content is naive. The moderator is determining which information they want represented. In this case, not only are actual quotes and documentation being suppressed but so too is a third party's contribution, based on false reasoning. This is Wiki? PediaWikiMaster (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of this gives you license to engage in edit warring. Yamla (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've made two "reverts," and didn't actually touch the text of the document at all. I simply stated that another contributor provided valid information. I went ten(?) days without posting or doing anything. This is "warring?" First I'm charged with dual accounting. I was vindicated of that, with no apology from the moderator who falsely accused me. I made only two reverts so that both sides are properly represented. And I'm blocked? There is no warring in making two reverts (how many days apart?) and asking the author to identify his relationship with his father as well as allowing both sides to be represented. PediaWikiMaster (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per Ymblanter's comment below. Also, yes, two reverts a long time apart can indeed constitute warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2016 (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.

For clarification to the administrator considering an unblock, the article is under 1RR restriction. The user has been alerted about DS at their talk page above.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]