User talk:Polrout

.

Sarah Jeong

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please note the edit-restriction implemented for the page and don't violate it again. Abecedare (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polrut, the restriction is stated in the page notice that appears when you click to edit the page: Template:Editnotices/Page/Sarah Jeong Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked by User:Paul Erik for 48 hours even though all of my recent edits were, as far as I can tell, within the rules of WP. I simply altered the text slightly and removed a word to more accurately reflect the existing RS. For User:Paul Erik and User:Drmies, please point me to the WP rules that state these minor tweaks to an article "need consensus"? Thanks... Polrout (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this edit. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, that doesn't answer my question. I'm asking for some help here please, I was banned in part because User:Paul Erik claimed that some minor trivial edits and c/e (which by the way more accurately reflect the existing RS) "needed discussion on the talk page". Again, please answer my previous question: what are the WP rules that state these minor tweaks to an article "need discussion on the talk page"? Polrout (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. The edit notice clearly says "You are not permitted to edit or expand the content related to recent tweet controversy without prior discussion and consensus on talkpage, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page" and then some more stuff. Are you asking how it is that an administrator can impose such a restriction? Do you have a half an hour so we can go through Wikipedia governance structures, and the particular history of problematic edits in this subject area? The general note on "discretionary sanctions" is here, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, and the arbitration case that led to that decision is here, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Next time, it's probably a good idea to ask first and shoot later. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm not sure how many additional times you needed to see "You are not permitted to edit or expand the content related to recent tweet controversy without prior discussion and consensus on talkpage, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page" before you took a pause. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul Erik here's the thing, I admit I'm not well-versed in the rules of WP, but I honestly didn't think that making minor tweaks (literally just changing the word order around) and removing the word "strongly" (that word by the way doesn't appear in the cited RS) would be such a big deal. Apparently you are fine with that, but you ban me for trying to improve an article. Polrout (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not banned, you're blocked, and you're not banned because you tried to improve an article, but because you edit warred and blatantly disregarded a rule for editing this article. You could have, for instance, asked for confirmation if that edit would be OK. Though you were told it was not, and you did it again. That's really all there is to it. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies if I had asked you or Paul Erik for permission to make those minor edits would you have allowed them? Polrout (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could, of course, have discussed the matter on the talk page. Now, if you don't mind... Drmies (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do mind. You basically just proved my whole point. You are not fair unbiased admins. You both just admitted you wouldn't allow me to correct a sentence (by removing the word strongly which doesn't appear in any of the cited RS) or change the order of words around (aka copyediting). Polrout (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--

pinging some admins and higher-up/veteran users to get some help on this issue: User:Abecedare,User:Sandstein,User:JFG,User:Rusf10,User:Neptune's Trident,User:Winkelvi,User:Wumbolo

Just wanted to draw your attention to some vandalism that was done to Jimbo Wales talk page. I'm blocked for 48 hrs so I can't remove it. A user vandalized and altered a section header and the vandalism has not been removed for some reason 12 hours later (here is the link [1]) even though it is on the literal WP creators talk page. While you are there take a minute or two to read the tweet and some of the comments. Maybe some admins and higher-up editors can get a better picture of how much of a joke WP has become and why it has gained a large reputation as a liberal/left-wing biased website instead of what it should be - a neutral encyclopedia. BTW another user claimed there was slander in the tweet and so they redacted it per WP:BLP (here is the link:[2])...is that a part of the existing BLP rules? This same user actually said the following: "you can't say stuff like that here". So now if someone posts a critical tweet about WP it has to be redacted and censored I guess. Wow...I guess Jimbo Wales would be proud of this. Polrout (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered more concrete evidence of blatant double-standards and bias on WP. On the talk page of Drmies talk a user criticized them for calling another user that they blocked "swine". Here is the direct quote from Drmies talk page: I wanted to remind you that WP:NPA says "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user."" meaning that you probably should not call vandals "swine".

The response from Drmies was to completely dismiss the other user, they then said the following: "I really enjoy being mansplained what I can and cannot do". So there you have it folks, Drmies not only attacked another user with a vulgar term (he also gave no reason for why he called the user swine, and actually said "Given what that editor was trying to do swine was quite courteous") he/she then says they don't want to be "mansplained". In case you aren't aware, mansplain is a term only liberal SJW ideologues use, nobody even in the center or center-left of politics really uses that term. The real question I have here is why are these obviously ideologically biased users/admins allowed free-reign to abuse other users and censor WP (as is currently being done with the Sarah Jeong page) while users like myself get blocked and penalized? Polrout (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC) BTW here is the tweet by Christina Hoff-Sommers that was "redcated" and censored from Jimbo Wales talk page:[3][reply]

Hmm good luck getting unblocked if all you do is make false accusations. You cannot see what that IP editor did, because their edits were so disgusting and egregious that they had to be removed from the record, even from the filter log. As for "only liberal SJW ideologues", well, whatever. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made no false accusations, you just don't like that I called you out for labeling another user "swine" (BTW a question for other users/admins: where are the sanctions against Drmies for attacking another user like that? Also, you would think if you are going to call someone swine you would at least give an explantion to other users why you used that word but all Drmies says is "their edits were so disgusting and egregious they had to removed from the record". How do we know that? You could say anything, maybe the blocked users edits were not that bad but since you redacted them we can't tell, like other users here redact any info they disagree with politically (as seen on Jimbo Wales talk page). Which brings me to my next point, why have no users (including admins) removed the blatant vandalism I pointed out above done to Jimbo Wales talk page?? Polrout (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polrout, allow me then to "womansplain" it. "You are not allowed to edit" that part of the article without prior discussion and consensus on the talk page means ... you are not allowed to edit it. No matter whether you consider your edit to be "minor tweaks" and removal of a word not in the sources, or not. No matter who you are. It was clear and you were warned several times that you were in violation. The article is under discretionary sanctions; that's the fact of the matter. Wikipedia is a private website; your right to edit is not absolute, in this case you were fairly informed that you needed consensus for any edit to that passage. ... In addition, this is not removing the word "strongly" and "literally just changing the word order around". you've substituted different words. If you understand now, now make an unblock request if you want to. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Paul Erik I won't remove that text again, I don't want to be disruptive on the talk page. I was just upset about Drmies saying that I made false accusations when everything I wrote was not only true but also backed up by Drmies own comments. I noticed that nobody (including any admins) has removed the vandalism done to Jimbo Wales talk page. Above I linked to the two edits showing the vandalism done to the section header, and also the removal of the tweet link. Could you please take care of that? You must care a lot about WP since you blocked me over basically nothing (some minor edits made to improve the Sarah Jeong article and reflect what RS said) so I'm assuming you are also upset about that vandalism...thanks so much. Polrout (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for your editing history shows that you are not here to build an encyclopedia and are unable to understand how to conduct youself and communicate here.

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 ~~~~}}. Abecedare (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the misuse of your talkpage during the earlier block, your ability to edit this page also has been removed. You can appeal the block by following the instructions at WP:UTRS. Abecedare (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, so this is another installment of that BOLO97 person. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies: Had to look that up. They do have considerable talent in drawing people into offering extended and frustrating explanations. Abecedare (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]