User talk:Tappedoutdr

June 2021

Hello, I'm C.Fred. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Madeleine Roux, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Madeleine Roux. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Madeleine Roux, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that still poorly sourced?

Yes, it is. Adding that someone is "known for hating white men" would require extremely strong sourcing to reliable, independent sources, per WP:BLP. Your personal views of her tweets are not sufficient. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/10/06/multiple-world-of-warcraft-authors-including-l-l-mckinney-and-catherynne-m-valente-express-racist-anti-white-beliefs/

Bounding Into Comics is not a reliable source, and even if it was, an article stating that Roux "has expressed anti-white beliefs" does not establish that she is "known for" "hating white men". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that doesn't suit your agenda is dismissed as "not a reliable source", here's a fact for you, wikipedia is not credited as a reliable source either but here we are.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293#The_Reliability_of_"Bounding_into_Comics". If you would like to begin a new discussion to suggest this article can be used as a RS, be my guest, but the last discussion did not establish that it's reliable. And yes, I'm aware (we don't consider Wikipedia reliable: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source). But I also don't try to use Wikipedia as a reliable source in articles. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I am appealing my block, because user GorillaWarfare was not happy with the content being posted they removed it and blocked me, The content i posted was verified by the person in question as they were the direct source of the information, i included the source which does not break any source rules posted on wikipedia in this regard as this is not a self published tweet in relation to any field of expertise or proclamation of any knowledge, this was a simple statement that this author is outspoken in regards to white men on twitter with a multitude of verified tweets from that persons verified twitter account about white men. Gorillawarfare refused to acknowledge this aspect of it and immediately shut down any attempts to provide sources, put words in my mouth that i was using wikipedia as a source??, removed my last reply and blocked me from editing. If this person is unable to maintain composure when dealing with any sort of conflict without flying off the handle petulantly at the first sign of resistance or debate than that persons position of power should be questioned going forward.}}

You're going to want to use the {{unblock }} template as instructed above, or else other administrators will not be alerted to your request. However, you were amply alerted of the sourcing requirements, particularly as they apply to biographies of living people, and so you will probably wish to explain why you chose to continue to flout them in your edit war. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:15, 20 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

There is no "war", that exists only in your head because someone has the audacity to have a different opinion to yours and challenge your decision making. I followed the rules with my edits, in the final edit that i was banned for there was nothing inflammatory, nothing misleading, nothing in factual, i posted direct reliable sources of a simple statement which absolutely complies with wikipedias rule of "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material" and "Reliable sources Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully." I followed the rules stated on wikipedia for this, rules that contradict your previous statements. Then banned because you personally did not like the content, that is not impartial, that is not appropriate of a so called admin. Stating that Madeleine Roux is often outspoken about white men in her twitter then enclosing direct links to her twitter being rather inflammatory towards white men is not something that a person should be getting banned for, nor is it a subject that should be covered up simply because you personally don't like that story. It's getting extremely confusing to follow your flow of logic with the rules being nothing other than biased considering you have allowed other reference sources that contain positive side blogs yet in your own words are not admissible as reliable sources, but one that is proposed in a negative light is somehow deemed unusable, it's rather contradictory and especially petulant to start banning people because they challenge these contradictions while following the rules laid before them. Sometimes authors you like are not nice people, you should not have any control over hiding that information from other people simply because you don't like it, nor should you have the ability to silence people speaking out about it.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia has high standards when writing about living people. Your statement was very negative and was not supported by reliable sources. For reference, "disneystarwarsisdumb.wordpress.com" is not a reliable source. Nor is some twitter post.

Furthermore even if this was not a violation of our biographies on live people you were still edit warring. It is not okay to repeatedly make the same edit over and over when other editors are removing it. One of the few exceptions to this is to reverse a violation of our BLP policy.

I am very concerned that you are accusing the administrator of having a bias in this matter. It tells me that you don't understand the underlying policies. Your 31 hour block was very light and I assure you that if you don't figure this out and continue to violate this very important policy that your blocks will get longer and eventually become indefinite.

For this reason I suggest you use this time to read up on the policies: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Edit warring.

I find this block to be 100% correct, and in my opinion very lenient. As such I am declining your unblock request.

Articles about living people are under special discretionary sanctions and users that are problematic in this area may be banned from the topic at the discretion of an administrator.

As for your concerns with the blocking administrator, the actions of an admin can receive community review at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard once your block has expired. I must warn you though that they will find the actions of this administrator correct and almost certainly take a closer look at your own behavior . I recommend instead you look at your own behavior and try to avoid this in the future. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:45, 21 June 2021 (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.

Glad you figured out the template, another admin should be along shortly to answer your unblock request. Please only have one active unblock request at a time.

You may also wish to explain to the unblocking administrator why you apparently evaded your block shortly after it was imposed to continue edit warring the content into the article: [1].

WP:ABOUTSELF allows for simple statements of fact by a BLP subject to be included in a BLP. For example, if Roux had tweeted "My birthday is January 1, 1980" (made-up date there), we could potentially use that in the article so long as there was no reason to doubt its veracity. ABOUTSELF does not allow for editors to introduce interpretive statements of primary sources into articles, such as stating that Roux is "known for" being "anti white men", or that she is "often outspoken" about white men, based on her tweets. Those are statements that must be supported by reliable, independent sources, which you have apparently not been able to find. I just sourced and expanded her biography a bit, and in my searching for sourcing I didn't find a single reliable source commenting on her tweets, so I suspect you may not have much luck with this crusade. A lot of people with biographies on Wikipedia tweet about a lot of different subjects, but it does not rise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia until sources find it noteworthy to report upon. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for this accusation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tappedoutdr (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which bit of my comment are you referring to? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

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 shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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 the 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.

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

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 shown interest in articles about 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 the 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.

HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]