User talk:AndInFirstPlace

MyText AndInFirstPlace 02:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC) --AndInFirstPlace 02:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--[[User:AndInFirstPlace|AndInFirstPlace]] [[User talk: AndInFirstPlace]] (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

--AndInFirstPlace User talk: AndInFirstPlace 03:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AndInFirstPlace, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease your disruptive editing at WP:AN/I

I have to ask to please stop adding content to the closed thread that you opened at WP:ANI#Jonathunder conduct. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Acroterion cannot block me justly for complaining about how he treated me.

Decline reason:

So sorry. I cannot unblock you at this time. There was far more to your disruptive behavior than complaining about Acroterion. Complaining about admins is Wikipedia's favorite pass time. That you are unable to understand how off-base you have been does not inspire confidence. You seem to be here in order to promote some candidate or another. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a venue for promoting candidates. And comlaining about other editors for disagreeing with you will not endear you to the rest of the community. You must learn to collaborate with-- and learn from others. You might want to read BMK's advice below. He is wise. Please reread the WP:GAB to guidance on appealing a block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2019 (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.

You might spend some time reading about Wikipedia policies and administration so you actually know what you are talking about. Spend a few years editing here, making contributions and keeping out of trouble and you MIGHT be eligible to try to become an administrator. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful. Thank you! --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, never post a post in the middle of a talk page, like you did here because no editor would see it. Post a new comment at the bottom of an editor's talk page. Good luck! 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that as well, thanks! Glad to be getting the lay of the land. --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

I've deleted your extremely premature and mistakenly-conceived RFA pages. See WP:NOTNOW for more . Acroterion (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer, given your history of condescension, that other admins correspond with me moving forward. --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some tips

Hi. We've never had any contact or disputes, so I hope you'll accept some tips and information about Wikipedia from me.

First off, I am not an administrator, I am a rank-and-file editor just like you. However, I've been here for 13 years and I have almost 240,000 edits, so I think I know the place pretty well.

Administrators on Wikipedia do not adjudicate content disputes. The do deal with behavioral problems, as well as with the various things that need to be fix or cleaned up. That's why we sometimes refer to administrators as editors who "have the mop" - the "mop" being the ability to perform those tasks.

Administrators get to be administrators by going through RfA, which can be a harrowing process in which the editor's past history, both in behavior and editing, is examined, as well as their knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, rules, and normal modes of operation. It's rare for someone who hasn't been here for at least 2-3 years and accumulated a serious number of edits to be made an administrator. Back in the old days, at the very beginning of Wikipedia, all you really had to do was ask for it, and you'd get it, but those days are long gone. Now, you really do have to be qualified to become an admin.

Administrators are not "assigned" to so any particular task, to any specific subject area, or to any article. Every administrator can do anything that an administrator can do. Articles do not have an administrator assigned to them, they're "patrolled" by whoever patrols them, or by any admin who had a dispute brought to their attention, or by any admin who happens to come along. As I said, administrators do not settle content disputes, but they can take steps to insure that the disputants settle it between themselves and other editors on the article's talk page or in dispute resolution.

The normal steps to take if you and another editor disagree about something is to present your arguments on the talk page, and try to work toward a compromise. Other editors and and will participate as well. If a WP:consensus is reached (consensus being extremely important on Wikipedia) then that's what will be done. If no consensus can be reached then, as I said above, the next step is dispute resolution. Only if the behavior of any of the editors involved is a problem do administrators become directly involved.

We have a rule here which asks that editors not "bite the newbies" (WP:BITE), because we know that Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, and we don;t want people to be driven away from editing it if they are scolded for making rookie mistakes. But that doesn't mean that new editors shouldn't listen when other editors give them tips about how the place works: there's a lot to learn, and, for the most part, these hints are meant in a friendly manner. Try not to take them as criticism, and instead take them in and let them help you to edit Wikipedia more skillfully.

That's about it. When your block expires, please enjoy editing Wikipedia. Remember, we're all here for the same reason, to improve the encyclopedia.

Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing. I'm told that the WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to go to get help if you're new to Wikipedia, so you might give that a try. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One final note. Administrators are only human, and there are good ones and less good ones (there are, in my experience, very few admins who are actually bad). Your interaction with Acroterion has, so far, been rather discordant, but, in my opinion, they are a very good administrator. Can I suggest that you try to look past this first incident, and not hold a negative view of them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, since this wasn't mentioned what-so-ever above - Administrators on Wikipedia are not paid staff. Every administrator, like every editor, is a volunteer who does this on their own free time. Therefore, there is no "supervisor" for admins. Whenever the Wikimedia Foundation's staff edit, it's under very specific circumstances and not to enforce or endorse an article's content. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:51, 16 January 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Still somewhat confused about this block. Is voicing my concern about admin conduct the equivalent of disrupting the encyclopedia?

Decline reason:

You were blocked for disrupting ANI with your off base concerns. I would suggest that you read the comments and advice above to correct your misconceptions. As this request does not request unblock, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2019 (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.

False accusation

I noticed that you placed a comment on my talk page asserting that I had removed content from the encyclopedia without explanation. I had no idea what you were referring to, and you did not specify what you were referring to. I searched my history and found that you had reverted an edit I made to the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries page regarding Andrew Yang. Contrary to your comment, I did explain the reasons I removed the content, both in my edit summary and in three separate entries on the talk page. In the future, please do not make false accusations against me or other users. SunCrow (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

help

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do I fix my signature?

AndInFirstPlace 02:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You sign using 4 tildes: ~~~~ GAB^gab 02:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh like this AndInFirstPlace 02:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

His problem is that he doesn't link to his user page (or user talk page) in the sig. Add [[User:AndInFirstPlace|MyText]] somewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MyText AndInFirstPlace

Thanks for the help, colleagues! Just don't assume my gender identity next time.AndInFirstPlace 02:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like this was resolved. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely the editor is coming back, but just a reminder WP:SIGLINK does not require a talk page link. It simply requires a link to one of the user page, talk page or contributions page. So while it's far better to simply link to the talk page, if AndInFirstPlace was in good standing and wanted to link to only their user page, this is allowed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Canterbury Tail talk 02:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AndInFirstPlace. You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access to the channel.

I'm gonna revert it back to the way it should be then open a dialogue. AndInFirstPlace 02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the better approach would be to revert your edit and then open the dialog. Or better yet, you should have opened a dialogue the first time someone reverted you per WP:BRD. Canterbury Tail talk 02:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

k. AndInFirstPlace 02:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 03:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of enforcement request

Hi, User:AndInFirstPlace, I'm issuing a notification of an enforcement request for you. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the relevant section: [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of article sanctions, including 1RR on the page 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from all edits and articles related to post-1932 American Politics, broadly construed, for six months.

You have been sanctioned for edit warring and disruptive editing.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GoldenRing (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear!

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).

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

Request reason:

Never got chance to provide a statement at AE. Gotta let me testify, given my status as one of the leading contrarians on this here website. AndInFirstPlace 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This was a clear-cut violation. Anything you wanted to say at AE, you can also say here in a proper unblock request in which you seek to convince reviewing administrators that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:06, 18 January 2019 (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.

Candidly, and not meaning to be offensive, but after only 5 days of having an account on Wikipedia you haven't had time to be "the leading" anything here. Or are you saying you've had other registered Wikipedia accounts before this one, or used unregistered IPs to edit for some time? If so, please identify them, so we can put to rest any concerns about sockpuppetry or block evasion. General Ization ^Talk 20:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You got me. I also operate User: David O. Johnson --AndInFirstPlace 20:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(As the user is now blocked for 2 weeks and has had TPA revoked, let me say that I think I'm not alone in suspecting that the above statement is both false and, in fact, attempted retaliation against an editor this editor has had a disagreement with recently – a statement which I believe has led now to the extension of their block and the revocation of TPA.) General Ization ^Talk 21:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: For the remark above falsely implicating David O. Johnson, I suspect this user is a troll, and I would recommend this be extended to an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block. Since this is an WP:AE block, I think I need your "explicit prior affirmative consent" to override it. Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seemed to be consensus at AN/I that the next block would be indefinite. Whatever this editor is here for, building meaningful content doesn't appear to be it. Jonathunder (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no relation whatsoever with this user; I just wanted to comment. It's clear that I am being falsely targeted because User:AndInFirstPlace does not like my recent edits. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone believed AndIn, other than his own sockpuppets. (I've just indeffed one of them.) Jonathunder (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've upped the block to indef per WP:NOTHERE and the ANI thread. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@L235 and Mz7: Just to confirm I have no problem with the modification of my AE block - I had also left a note at ANI giving consent to such a change, anticipating this might end up here. GoldenRing (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As CheckUser data has confirmed that this account has evaded a block multiple times, I have changed this to a CheckUser block. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]