User talk:Chris H of New York

February 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Trump. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TL22 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You are edit waring with a decision. You're suppose to appeal it. You can also wait a few weeks and submit a new RM for consideration.Chris H of New York (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no decision by you, at least none that I am aware of. Please see my comments at the talk. SkyWarrior 03:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

At the great risk of being taken advantage of, I declare that I am stopping editing for the next at least 12 hours to show I have restraint. Do not be unethical, edit war, and show you have no restraint. Thank you. Chris H of New York (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know, you need to be aware of the three-revert rule, as you have recently done four reverts in under 24 hours. I would like to kindly ask you to not continue this, regardless of whether those 12 or 24 hours pass, and focus on discussing in the meantime. --TL22 (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation but I thought that the 3 revert rule exempts vandalism, like people reverting with no explanation and unclosing a decision. Chris H of New York (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Note

Because you're new here, you get some extra leeway. But if it comes to my attention that you are edit warring again like you did on Trump then expect a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, please look at the move request that was closed a little over a week ago. A formal discussion with over fifty editors participating and closed by an experienced editor. Did you really think one comment and your say-so was going to overturn that decision? If so, please give your head a shake. Your fellow editors were kind enough not to make a formal complaint. But do that with more contentious articles and areas and you probably won't be so lucky. Please keep this in mind and focus on content rather than implementing processes until you gain significantly more experience here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Chris, I came here to offer some friendly advice, but I see that NeilN got here first.

NeilN's comments are wise. Closing discussions on Wikipedia requires a lot of experience of Wikiedia's policies and guidelines, and that applies even more so when the issues involved are high-profile and contentious.

I want to believe that you meant well, but your edits to Trump and Talk:Trump make me wonder whether any goodwill is accompanied by good judgement.

1. You identified a comment on a talk page as a move discussion, which it wasn't. See WP:RM for how to create a move discussion, and for examples of other move discussion.
2. You ignored that there had two well-attended recent RM discussions.
3. You then "closed"[1] that comment on the (false) move basis that it was a move discussion (which it wasn't)
4. You "closed" the discussion even though your contributions record shows you having participated in precisely zero previous discussions.
5. You then argued with a more experienced closer who tried to explain what you had done wrong
6. You then chose to implement the mistaken close you had made of a non-RM discussion, and did it in the wrong way, by redirecting[2] a page rather than moving it. In doing so you, you wiped a much-needed disambiguation page.
7. Having been reverted, you redirected again[3], and again wiped a disambiguation page
8. This was WP:EDITWARring, which can land you in trouble
9. You were reverted for a second time, and again you redirected[4], and again wiped a disambiguation page
10. You were reverted for a third time, and again you redirected[5], and again wiped a disambiguation page
11. That third revert broke WP:3RR. The policy says "Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident".
12. You were reverted for a fourth time, and again you redirected[6], and again wiped a disambiguation page
13. At time of writing, your final comment[7] is to (wrongly) rebuke a more experienced editor.

So you should count yourself as extremely lucky not to get the usual 24-hour block for WP:3RR. Many admins would not have been as generous as NeilN.

As NeilN noted, please concentrate on content until you are more familiar with processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation but I thought that the 3 revert rule exempts fixing vandalism like if someone reverts a closed decision and removes it or similar. But I am a reasonable person, which is why I stopped even if nobody said so. Chris H of New York (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Chris, there is no such exemption to WP:3RR. Please read it.

It is not true that you stopped even if nobody said so. You stopped only after multiple warnings above.

And it's a great pity that you have chosen not to hear all the rest of the warnings above about, and proceeded to revisit the same issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Another_malformed_Trump_move_request. . BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You were strongly advised to focus on content instead of process and instead you opened another totally inappropriate and inappropriately worded move request. Coupled with this indicates your are not reading or not understanding policies and guidelines, wasting significant amounts of other editors' time. Any unblock requests should explicitly state how you're going to avoid this in the future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)