User talk:TRVTHSERVM

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 is a brief 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.

Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok look, here is the problem: you have cited WP:BLP as a justification of your reversal. Thing is, the article itself does not really adhere to those rules to begin with. Let me quote from BLP: "The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism."

Also: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"

So the article isn't written based on unbiased, reliable sources to begin with because literally all of them use the author's own statements and claims as a source. I have explained on the talk page of the article why that is problematic. I can rephrase the material added if you want, but I don't really see why making people aware that those claims are not backed by evidence is considered accusatory/libelous. I'm going to rephrase what I have written and if you don't agree you can explain on the talk page why before reverting. Thanks. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your next choices of action do not include attempting to reinstate this edit for a fifth time. If you attempt this again, without gaining consensus to add the material, I will recommend you be blocked from editing that article. Either gain consensus on the talk page of the article for its inclusion, or it remains off. I hope I've been clear. If I haven't, ask for clarification. Do not reinstate this material again. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating two of the most important policies on this website, No original research and Biographies of living peole. You must stop immediately or you will be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What part of BLP am I violating? TRVTHSERVM (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have replaced the "supposedly" with "according to her own claims". Is that at least ok? TRVTHSERVM (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. I strongly recommend you cease editing that article and gain consensus for any further changes before making them. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll discuss this further on the article's talk page. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 ~~~~}}.

You have also violated the No original research policy. You were warned to stop and you persisted. Cullen328 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, too late. You've now been blocked. When three different people plus an IP revert your attempted addition, there's got to be a point somewhere where you think "Hmm, maybe this isn't a good idea" and you try other means of dispute resolution rather than attempt to brute force your way to the changes you want. Your methods aren't working. Whether you think they aren't BLP violations or not is irrelevant. You do not have consensus to keep trying to make these changes. You were cautioned and warned multiple times but went ahead and did this anyway. You knew this was a contentious topic and decided to plow ahead anyway. This is a good block. You could try and make an unblock appeal, but it's unlikely to be accepted. If you return to the same behavior after this block expires, I wouldn't be surprised if the next block is indefinite. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether you think they aren't BLP violations or not is irrelevant. You do not have consensus to keep trying to make these changes."

Cool, thanks for letting me know that in the end the rules don't even matter anyway because it's mob rule that decides things.

"and you try other means of dispute resolution"

Well I did try if you would actually care to read the talk page of the article where I had to write multiple comments and make further edits until someone finally responded in all their holier-than-though arrogance. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your ranting and your personal attacks against your fellow editors or your talk page access will be revoked. Drop your vendetta against this person or your block will be extended to indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but you can rant of course, right? I didn't even talk to you, I was talking to Hammersoft. I think he can talk for himself ;-) TRVTHSERVM (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the blocking administrator and I am just doing my job. Cullen328 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I am the blocking administrator and I am just doing my job."

Not really. A blocking administrator is not supposed to jump to the rescue of another editor like a lapdog. Hammersoft can speak for himself. You are a prime example of "rules for thee but not for me" when asking others to stop their "attacks" and "rants" when that is precisely what you are doing here. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS is a rule. While it may or may not be apt to describe it as "mob rule", it is policy here. If you think it's more important that a single editor should stand above several other editors and have their way with the article while the other editors just accept it, you are welcome to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to get the policy changed to reflect your wishes. As to continuing with WP:DR; sure, but the proper course of action isn't to try to continue to force your preferred version of the article while discussion is going on when so many people stand in disagreement with you. Three different people are now saying this is a BLP violation. Where would you like this to stop? When we all agree that it's a BLP violation (already done) and let you do the edit anyway? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"While it may or may not be apt to describe it as "mob rule", it is policy here. If you think it's more important that a single editor should stand above several other editors"

No you misunderstood me. I am not trying to say that I should stand above everyone else. I'm just wondering why we even have all those rules, if WP:CONSENSUS outweighs those rules anyway... TRVTHSERVM (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intermix of policies and guidelines here strive to achieve the best ends possible. When there are policy issues at hand, consensus helps guide us toward a productive end. Ignoring consensus, conducting an edit war, prematurely reporting people to a noticeboard, and accusing other people of various nefarious things isn't a pathway forward. That's why consensus is so important and pertinent to this issue. You've chosen to act outside of the bounds of appropriate behavior here, with completely predictable outcomes. You've been warned multiple times and ignored the warnings. The consequences are of your own making. I encourage you to drop the keyboard, walk away, go do something else and let your obvious passion for this subject to subside a bit. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I encourage you to drop the keyboard, walk away, go do something else and let your obvious passion for this subject to subside a bit"

The amount of psychological projection is mind boggling truly. It's funny how this comes from someone who practically spends the entire day on wikipedia and yet asks me to drop the keyboard.

Anyway, let's say the dhs replies back and says that the person in question hasn't worked for them and never received the Valor Award. Would that count as evidence enough to make the necessary changes? TRVTHSERVM (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the DHS sends you a personal email, no. If they can provide an available, verifiable source (such as a listing of all USSS valor awards on a government website showing she is not on it), yes. As to the rest? I fail to understand why, when you are already under threat of having your talk page privileges removed, you decide to double down and cast more aspersions? Good grief. I'm trying to help you, and the best you can do is to claim I'm psychologically projecting? If I weren't involved, I would suspend your talk page privileges now. Wow. Utter wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Your talk page access has been revoked. Please see WP:UTRS for your options. Cullen328 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 - this block should be modified to indefinite. Impersonating federal officers is a serious crime, and that is exactly what this user is implying about Evy Poumpouras. The Secret Service, nor the DOJ, is going to ignore someone who writes a book saying that they used to be a federal officer, without taking decisive action, if it is not demonstrably true. And they certainly aren't going to allow her to go on multiple news programs definitively stating she used to be a federal officer if it is not demonstrably true. They have repeatedly tried to add this edit since August 5, and were subsequently warned numerous times. If they don't understand by now what a serious BLPVIO this is, I'm not sure they ever will. Thanks in advance for reviewing my comment. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaidnoway, I am sympathetic to the point you are making and share your concern about this editor's ongoing conduct. I chose what I believed to be the best block length and the best block terms. I am well aware that I could be wrong but I am not going to increase the block without additional information. So, if you see disruptive editing after the current block expires, please let me know. Now, I will investigate the new disruption that you have reported. Sorry gor a somewhat disjointed response. I am writing on the fly. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaidnoway, after refreshing my memory about this editor's misconduct, I want to say to you and this editor that I will indefinitely block this editor if they again engage in significant misconduct. The editor must fully comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines if they plan to edit here after their current block expires. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]