User talk:Parttime711employee

Alan Dershowitz editing restrictions

Please note that you have violated that discretionary sanctions on Alan Dershowitz, which state that if an editor has an edit of theirs reverted, they may not revert back within 24 hours. I strongly suggest you restore the passage about Dershowitz being a liberal and discuss the situation on the talk page.

Further, the claim about him being a liberal is directly backed up by two sources; I hardly see how you can state it's "unfactual". —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New here.Explain please? Reviewed rules. Says 3 time reverts allowed.Rules say you are not allowed to include this politicalized content.

Did you miss the giant edit notice at the top of the article? —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not all, User:C.Fred. The giant edit notice also says you must be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days tenure to edit the article. You, Parttime711employee, have 9 edits and have been editing Wikipedia for half an hour. It'll be a while before you're allowed to edit Alan Dershowitz, let alone edit war on it. Are you really new, BTW? In this edit summary, you seem surprisingly familiar with Wikipedia jargon. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yes. I’m new. This isn’t terribly complicated to figure out. He made the charge. It was his words. I read the rules to the best of my ability and responded. You are being smug. Your blp rules also say that smears against living people are big no no’s. Your rules say that sources alone can’t justify any edit. Your seasoned editor also wasn’t truthful. Only a block text argument exists on Dershowitz. No official vote or consensus. Two wrongs don’t make a right and including unfactual politicized content about a living person apparently is a misuse of the rules of editing even if doing so is based on a technicality. Your rules apparently are clearly against this misuse. You apparently should know better if you are going to lecture me like this, seasoned editors

And the Arbitration Enforcement rules say I could revert your edits on sight. Would you prefer to revert the edit yourself and discuss the matter on the talk page, would you rather I revert it, or would you rather I just escalate this to the administrators' noticeboard for action regarding your breach of the 500 edit/30 day restriction and the 24 hour revert limit? —C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t respond to threats. Dershowitz isn’t some unofficial spokesman or expert on what liberals think. I’m only interested in factually accurate articles. Not yours or anyone else’s political agendas. You are using triangulation of the rules to use smears on a living person which your own rules forbid. You lied about a consensus on the forum discussion page that doesn’t exist. Your rules say an official vote would be required if you want to include such a controversial edit. Don’t reinsert this slander on Dershowitz until this is properly mediated. Yes, move forward with your mediation and we will address all issues. Your rules clearly forbid using technicalities and loopholes to include controversial, unfactual, politicized or opinion-based content in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. This is all four of these violations! Your rules also prohibit rules lawyering to get away with your website misuse like most internet forums. If you want to mediate this then I am willing if you are, despite your unclean hands in this. Let me know when and where.

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding you and this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)r[reply]

No admin actually applied ECP to the article you wrongly lectured me on. The admin has now and logged it. See [1] I am now aware of 500/30 and discretionary sanctions, even on articles that aren't on ECP yet. Try applying good faith next time, according to your own rules of conduct.Parttime711employee (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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} 23:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( in the enhanced toolbar, or if you use the old "classic" toolbar) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018 II

You started editing Wikipedia yesterday, or so you say, which means you hardly have the experience to identify what counts as a personal attack here. Therefore please don't remove anybody's comments. Read the policy WP:No personal attacks to begin with, and if you should see something you believe to be a personal attack (certainly wrongly in this case), don't remove it, but instead ask an admin to, either personally or on WP:ANI. I have restored the comment you removed. As for your edit summary when removing my previous post, by all means feel free to report me. Bishonen | talk 00:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

That fallacy you are employing (an appeal to authority) doesn't mean I don't have internet experience or forum-discussion experience, or that I don't know what a personal attack looks like. Rather than the disruptive editor making his comments about my argument, he made it about me. And you'd be lying if you denied the very personal tone or remarks. He childishly attacked me as ignorant, with emotional reasoning. And your laughable defense, and enabling of his actions, speaks volumes. Not to mention he was a previously sanctioned user who was edit warring. So I wasn't too off the mark since this user was disciplined for being disruptive. Even so....tenure or experience doesn't give any veteran member some privilege to attack another user. Your rules make it clear that the same rules apply to everyone. If anything the rules talk about applying good faith with new users, something you are clearly not doing in my case.

Despite your elitist remarks, I re-read your personal attack policy and the disruptive user's smug statement and personal remarks directed at me clearly falls within a violation of "no personal attacks." But, in your defense, like any guidelines, there is discretion and leeway on how to enforce those rules. And IMHO you are exploiting that for your double standard. Keep that up, then there will be a pattern of such and, yes, I will "report you" (happily). No one is above the rules.Parttime711employee (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for persistently, disruptively editing without logging in coupled with disruption by your account. This is a WP:CHECKUSER block. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]