.
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.
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Paul Erik
(talk)
(contribs)
01:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
--
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)
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]
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Abecedare (
talk)
04:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)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)
{{
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..
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.
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Paul Erik
(talk)
(contribs)
01:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
--
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)
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]
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Abecedare (
talk)
04:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)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)
{{
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.