User talk:Robjwev

September 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username. It also appears that your account is intended to be used for the purpose of telling the world about an organization, person or cause that you consider worthwhile. Unfortunately, many good causes are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, and all users are discouraged from editing in any area where they have an inherent conflict of interest. You may wish to consider one of these alternative outlets.

While user names that are the names of organizations are not permitted, you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Foundation", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87". Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

Please also note that you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text

{{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}

at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names.

Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z15

Unlock

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

Robjwev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Changed username to comply with Wikipedia name policy Robjwev (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Renamed already, so I've lifted your block. Happy editing! Yamla (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Modified broken template code, name change appears to have already been completed. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 00:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

COI and tendentious editing

You appear to have a close connection to the subject of the article American Descendants of Slavery that raises concerns about a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.

Anyone with a conflict of interest must avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your family or colleagues, your organization or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Note that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Even if you are not being paid, you are expected to disclose any close connection with the subject of the article, using the connected contributor template.

For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest.

The fact that you changed your username from “Adosinsurgent” does not resolve any of these concerns. Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others is furthermore a form of tendentious editing and you should not be issuing orders such as “do not repost” to other editors, particularly not in an article where you have a COI.

--‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 01:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such relationship with any particular organization...I have a close relationship with the issue and make it my personal responsibility to prevent people from using this site to spread misinformation. If you have proof otherwise please provide evidence to back up your claim. The issues with my name has been resolved so you have no right to continue to use this to back up your accusations. Robjwev (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of you harassing me accusing me of being affiliated with a group I’m not affiliated with you have a history of harassment on Wikipedia either retract your allegations on the on this page please remove all your negative posts and slander about me or I will take it up to a higher authority. I will discuss the content on the ADOS talk page but this is my personal message to you to stop it. Robjwev (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that a person who named their user account after an organization appears to have a WP:COI connection to that organization is not slander. You would do well to mind our policy Wikipedia:No legal threats.

I'm trying to be accommodating here, because I think it would lead to improvement of the ADOS article to have editors with a positive view of the organization proposing content to add to it; and because the kinds of editors who would take a positive view of ADOS are sorely needed on Wikipedia. But you are really pushing your luck by constantly issuing orders and commands to other editors; even administrators doing that sort of thing, without a very solid grounding in Wikipedia policy, is frowned upon.

You can do whatever you want with your own User Page and User Talk Page as long as it complies with the relevant policies and guidelines like Wikipedia:User pages; this includes Wikipedia:User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings. (Though the Discretionary Sanctions alert User:Doug Weller placed below is a special case; it can be deleted but recommended practice is to also place {{Ds/aware|ap2}} at the top of the talk page, to which you'd then add any other "topic codes" for alerts you receive in the future) But you can't simply order me to stop pointing out that your original account name was “Adosinsurgent” in the context of editing ADOS-related material; you could try to persuade me not to, but that would require a very convincing argument. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 18:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IDK what you think the fact that you’re changing my edits made by me placing warnings on topic pages saying that I’m not acting in good faith is insulting and a form of harassment. You have no evidence that I belong to any group. If you have evidence please present it. Please remove such warnings and I will promise to discuss any further deletions on the talk page before changing them Robjwev (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is getting silly. I don't know what you're even thinking to say defending myself is not allowed below—I just told you that you can delete every comment from this talk page if you want to. And you haven't tried to defend yourself from the COI allegation—you haven't even attempted to provide a plausible alternative explanation for why you created an account called “Adosinsurgent” and then came to edit related articles and the ADOS article, other than an intention to be an insurgent for ADOS. You don't have to be a member of a group to have a COI.

This is why, for example, political SuperPACs are not allowed to put a candidate's name in the SuperPAC name—they're required to at least maintain an appearance of being independent. You have not maintained an appearance of being independent from ADOS. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My proof is my word you're the accuser so prove theirs a link between me and this group. I changed my name to meet all guidelines for Wikipedia. ADOS is an acronym that describes a person that’s ancestors of descendants of slavery. Saying that it covers over 32 million people in the United States are they all not allowed to edit on the ADOS page because of a Heritage classification? Because the group on this page is #(hashtag) ADOS, not Heritage ADOS. Do you even understand this page that you’re trying to police? Because one is a culture the other is a movement. I’m not part of the movement but I support reparations alone with other groups that support reparations in the United States not just ADOS. I also contribute to thoes pages too. But because a person is interested in a topic doesn’t mean they have a COI. I could say you have a conflict of interest as well by allowing and defending unsupported accusations within unoriginal bias information (Cut&paste) on the ADOS page. I see this is going no where and you’re not acting in good faith by attacking me personally and accusing me of not acting in good faith. I will take this to dispute resolution and let them decide what happens. Robjwev (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me point out that it's your behavior which would be more aptly described as “policing” the ADOS article—attempting to remove negative points of view, issuing orders, telling other people they don't have the authority to make edits and can't possibly know what they're doing, and generally seeking out and trying to quash what you see as wrongdoing.

It's interesting that you've gone and requested another user's assistance in what you describe to them as a content dispute—but perhaps that's about the “Reception” section of the article and you haven't gotten around to take this to dispute resolution and let them decide what happens yet. The appropriate place to resolve disputes about COI is WP:COIN, the COI noticeboard—where other editors might well absolve you of COI, now that you've actually declared your relationship to ADOS, but might not overlook your other editing behavior and interaction with others either.

Since you've finally gotten around to actually describing the nature of your relationship to ADOS in this most recent comment above, I'm fine with defining this as a situation of WP:ADVOCACY, if you are expressing an intent to at least pursue the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Like I've said, you can delete comments, notices, and warnings from your own talk page as you wish with only a few exceptions, none of which are currently present. But you can't demand that everyone pretend not to notice the fact that your account was originally created with a name that fell under Wikipedia:Username policy § Promotional names, particularly not in conjunction with tendentious and promotional editing behavior in an associated article. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a comprehension problem or maybe I’m not able to communicate with you effectively! Because I never said I have a relationship with #ADOS maybe you should re-read what I said. But if you feel you have a case go for it. You’re not going to intimidate me from backing down. You have a long history of harassment fellow editors on Wikipedia so make sure you bring that up.....here a article that explains the difference. You should really understand what you don’t know before accusing someone of something. https://theintercept.com/2019/02/13/ados-kamala-harris-cory-booker-russian-bots/ I’m done with this please refrain from posting on my talk page. I will contact you when this goes to conflict resolution as required be Wikipedia. Robjwev (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:American Descendants of Slavery. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 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.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 16:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robjwev. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. - TNT ^😺 20:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

had two accounts with similar usernames I was unaware I was using them interchangeably now that I’m aware this behavior will stop. I had no malicious intent, and made no questionable edits. I’ve been transparent in my edits and interacted with my fellow editors on multiple talk pages. Robjwev (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

It does look like an honest mistake, especially since there are no significant edits from the other account. Just stick to this one and you'll be OK. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Slavery in the United States, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You produced an ungrammatical sentence, after I reverted with an explanation, you repeated the same grammatical error. I reverted your third edit because WP normally summarizes sources instead of quoting them verbatim. I still think that the text I restored summarizes the source correctly. If you disagree, please take your concerns to the article's talk page. Please keep in mind not to edit war, see WP:3RR. Let me add that I certainly have no intention of whitewashing enslavers or their crimes. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Acroterion (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only .gov sources that can be automatically assumed to be public domain are those of the federal government, and even those are to be used with care. A municipal government website would not normally be public domain. Acroterion (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Robjwev reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: ). Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have partially blocked you from Slavery in the United States for edit-warring to include a copyright violation, and personal attacks at AN3. If the personal attacks or copyright violations continue, you may be fully blocked. .gov websites are not public domain. Only content created by federal government employees in the performance of their duties is public domain, and even then to be used with caution. The city of Hampton's website is assumed to be copyrighted in the absence of an explicit release, compatible with Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation #1) This use falls on fair use in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder. If this is the case everything on this website is subject to copyright infringement. What I quoted is not word for word in all areas of the edit. Accusation #2) please show me the personal attacks I lunched towards anyone, This is editor bullying on their part manipulating the system to intimidate me to back down. Robjwev (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may not copy things into Wikipedia and use them in Wikipedia's voice. Direct quotes must be attributed in text, not copied in under the pretext of public domain or fair use. You were also warned about close paraphrasing. Your conduct toward Rsk6400 has been a series of personal attacks - the word "bullying" must stop appearing in your comments. You were properly warned by experienced editors, and you will face further restrictions if you continue to carry on in this manner. Acroterion (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]