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.- Mr X 🖋 13:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
You appear to misunderstand the situation. You are correct that consensus is required on this article before challenged text is restored. However, Volunteer Marek challenged it. It was incorrectly restored twice by 212.83.134.165. It was then incorrectly restored twice by you. Three editors have reverted these restorations after Marek’s initial removal. So, not only were these DS violations, you are now edit warring on a DS article. That is not wise. I suggest you self-revert your last restoration. O3000 ( talk) 14:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be editing anonymously. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in both your account and IP address being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. (cf. Special:Contributions/Darryl.jensen) SummerPhD v2.0 17:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
NeilN
talk to me 19:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Can you review the edit history? I removed a clearly unsourced claim about a small org per WP:BLPGROUP. Two editors restored it without sourcing it or discussing it on the talk page /info/en/?search=Talk:Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier#Center_for_Immigration_Studies Does BLP not apply anymore? 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 ( talk) 19:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Clear case of edit warring. As your request does not address this, I am declining it. 331dot ( talk) 21:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
The source has "The Center for Immigration Studies, a right-wing group that advocates for reductions in legal immigration". How to word "advocates for reductions in legal immigration" is a matter for discussion and not an edit warring exemption. -- NeilN talk to me 19:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My unblock request addresses the edit warring because now even NeilN admits "anti-immigrant" is unsourced making my removal BLP exempt. How else am I supposed to address breaking 3RR to remove a BLP vio? If you want me to promise not to continue the edit war, sure thing, I promise not to. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 ( talk) 21:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There's no acknowledgement here that the conduct was problematic and would need to be changed. The off-hand promise is unconvincing, and I agree with NeilN that there's wikilawyering going on, with BLP waved about as a "get out of edit-warring free" card. Thus the issues that led to the block are likely to recur. Huon ( talk) 10:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
.
"even NeilN admits "anti-immigrant" is unsourced" Diff? -- NeilN talk to me 21:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I do not recommend an early unblock for this editor - too much potential for disruption and wikilawyering. -- NeilN talk to me 21:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |