User talk:Eduardian

Eduardian, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Eduardian! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Hello, I'm Njd-de. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Andrew Christian, 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! – NJD-DE (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues

Please familiarise yourself with the WP:BLP policy if you are going to continue editing in relation to living persons.

Alert

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.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

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 ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to make a clear case for why you should be unblocked given these gross violations. Star Mississippi 15:42, 7 September 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).

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

Request reason:

The information added to the Yaoi Press page was a modification of the previous content in which the founder, Yamila Abraham, had not yet been convicted of the crimes she was charged with. In the updated content, I cited the press releases from the U.S. Department of Justice on both the arrest and indictment, as well as the conviction by guilty plea. I also obtained the sentencing information from the Federal Bureau of Prisons confirming that Abraham served one year in federal prison as a result and was released on 9/23/2011. Please cross-reference register number 44291-048 in the federal prison inmate search. This information relates directly to the history of the company as all publications ceased with the incarceration of Abraham until her return to publishing in 2014. The information contained in my edit is public and verifiable, as well as allowed under the BLP as Abraham was convicted and served a federal felony sentence. I would ask that user:Star Mississippi clarify their reasoning for the block with specific citation from the BLP beyond "gross violations," which is both subjective and unspecific, and how this information violates the subsection on crime when the individual in question was convicted and those citations were provided.Eduardian (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I completely agree with the reason for the block. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 8 September 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.

I have seen this and retain my concerns about an SPA and BLP violating edits, but defer to an uninvolved administrator's judgement. Feel free to take any action you deem fit. Star Mississippi 20:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor's entire editing history is using pages to add problematic content, presumably to further grudges against living persons. On one article they're edit warring to add unrelated extensive material about alleged crimes committed by non-notable private persons. Even ignoring the "register number" and "sentencing information from the Federal Bureau of Prisons" and "DOJ press releases" stuff above, their editing is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, is damaging to living persons (the subject of whom was at the help desk concerned about the article content). Nothing good will come of an unblock, the block should stay. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: Your response is noted. For the administrator who reviews this further, please take note that Star Mississippi has chosen to forego the administrators' requirement for accountability in refusing to respond to a direct request for clarification as well as administrator conduct by acting in bad faith, hiding their notes to fellow administrators in the source and making allegations of a personal motivation in sharing information that is protected by the BLP guidelines (they have been revealed with my edit to the page). The individual is notable in relation to the company, and their conviction had a direct impact on the publications, as well as English Language Manga published in the West. Claims of edit warring are unfounded, as this edit was a correction of a previous edit to be in line with the BLP policy. It is evidence enough of a course correction. Star Mississippi have noted, themselves, that this block is motivated by the individual filing a help desk ticket, and it is clear that they did not do their due diligence in reviewing the citations. While I understand that Wikipedia has an obligation to protect the reputation of living people, this individual damaged their own reputation by committing the crimes they were convicted of. Attempting to bury this information from the public and the history of the industry not only erases the seven victims, but the countless people that were impacted by the closure of the publisher, due to her actions.

- Nice try Eduardian. I'm not foregoing the requirement for accountability, but recusing myself as I am involved and therefore giving you the chance to have your block reviewed by someone who is neutral. In all honesty, your follow up reads that you're trying to right great wrongs, which is not what Wikipedia is here for. The individual's article was deleted, and they were therefore deemed not notable. You trying to use an article about the company (note, I was not the one who removed the content) as an excuse to focus on this person's reputation is also not what Wikipedia is here for. Star Mississippi 22:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree, as the subsection on righting great wrongs clearly states that the information must not be shared on Wikipedia until it has been reported by mainstream media or other reputable sources - which it had. Aside from that, the section existed long before my edit, which updated the section with current, correct information, that the individual had plead guilty to the charges and this had an effect on the publishing and future of the company. It seems to be only now, with that correct information added, that the individual has deemed it necessary to contest it. Recusing oneself when asked for direct clarification constitutes side-stepping one's responsibility to accountability, in my opinion, but I'm happy to leave that to another moderator's discretion - as well as why an indefinite ban was issued, rather than a temporary ban, warning, or rollback with explanation.Eduardian (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eduardian, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]