User talk:PZP-003

January 2018

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.

Template:Z33 — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Peter Strzok. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003, you really do need to be careful. "please stop altering my edits"?? Seriously? That's what we do here. Your identical edits on two articles did not improve them. Instead you mention Clinton as the client twice. That's unnecessary. My edit streamlined the text so it flowed better and mentioned each client only once. You have been warned above by Coffee for misuse of talk pages, but that warning also covers things like edit warring and uncollaborative editing.

Your response to an edit warring warning is unconstructive. Edit warring is not allowed here, even if you're right. I suggest you self-revert in both places (also here) since you have no valid rationale for your edits. Any problems can be fixed without restoring your awkward edits. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

On another topic, I see all your edits are marked as "minor", even when they aren't. Please don't do that, as it's seen as deceptive. Just change the setting in your "preferences". In reality, it is never required that you mark any edit as minor. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nunes memo

You're a brand new account. Take the time to read and absorb Wikipedia policies about Verification and Neutral Point of View and don't accuse experienced editors of bias without specific edit-related concerns you would like to discuss. See

SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

ASD

You have reinserted challenged content into the ASD article without addressing the central problem and engaging on the talk page. These are, as has repeatedly been stated in edit summaries, ad hominem attacks on the personnel and not criticisms or discussions of the organization and its activities. Please undo your reinsertion of the material now captioned "criticisms" and argue your case for inclusion on the talk page. I'll also note that "criticism sections" in general are discouraged on Wikipedia. We prefer to raise criticisms next to the facts to which they apply. In this case, of course, there are none because these are just personal smears. Please undo your re-insertion of this text. SPECIFICO talk 03:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry no ad hominem attacks or smears, just legitimate criticism from two well respected journalists both who have 25+ years of experience in reporting. Have a nice day. PZP-003 (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. please stop trying to continuously censor Wikipedia....just because you personally disagree with something doesn't mean you get to label it a "smear" or "undue" and then remove the information from the article. PZP-003 (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think, from your reply, that you're fully aware of the meaning of ad hominem. Please have a looksee: [1]. The text you've twice inserted without discussion is making statements about the people employed by ASD, and not about their actions or the organization. They are ad hominem and not valid comments on the ASD page. They might be suitable for those peoples' biographies, but not the ASD page. SPECIFICO talk 03:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections‎

That article is subject to discretionary sanctions, and you are currently engaging in an edit war. If you don't quit adding that disputed content to the article, some admin is going block you from editing. Geogene (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Specifically, you're in violation of the 1RR restriction. Unless you self revert immediately, I'll report you for a block. Geogene (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to ask other editors to make the edit for you, and stating that you will wait 24 hours and then continue making the edit is just begging for an edit warring block [2]. You are already in a blockable position. Don't make things worse. Meters (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent advice/warning from Meters. You don't have to break the bright line 3RR/24 hr rule to get blocked. Slow edit warring is blockable, even if its only one edit per day. The intention to keep adding that content, or enlist the help of others to participate in that slow edit war, is a blockable offense. I see you are now blocked for 24 hours, which is far less than deserved. You're lucky. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions block

Hello, PZP-003. I know that you are aware of the Discretionary Sanctions on articles about American politics, because you were warned about them in January. Articles under Discretionary Sanctions warn, at the top of the edit page, “You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.” The reason for these limits - no more than one reversion of other people's edits in a 24-hour period, and no reinserting material that someone else has removed unless you take it to the talk page and get consensus - is to prevent edit warring at these highly visible and controversial articles. But you violated these rules four times today. In this edit] at the article Trump–Russia dossier, you violated the Discretionary Sanctions by restoring material which had been challenged (by removing it). At the article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections you actually did it three times, here, here, and here. This blatant violation of the Discretionary Sanctions calls for a block, and I am accordingly blocking you from editing for 24 hours. The purpose of this block, and this explanation, is to make you aware that the Discretionary Sanctions are real and are enforced. Any future violations will result in a longer block. --MelanieN (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: I see that you self-reverted the fourth such addition. That suggests to me that you may be willing to abide by the rules now, or at least the WP:1RR rule. I suspect you still don't understand the rule about the need to obtain consensus before you restore controversial material. Let's talk about that. --MelanieN (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW - although you are blocked from most editing, you can still edit your own talk page here, if you want to talk about it. --MelanieN (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So I guess the way Wikipedia works is even if the information added is reliably sourced, a user will be blocked if other editors gang up on that editor, who's accurate reliably sourced info they don't like, gets added into an article. Yeah, that seems fair. By the way MelanieN you never answered the questions from my initial post. Here they are below (I re-worded them a little and added some points), can you please reply so I can better understand the way Wikipedia functions, thanks. PZP-003 (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Being right does not mean that you cannot get blocked. I think the arguments being made for removing criticism from Alliance for Securing Democracy are wrong (since when is "ad hominem smear" a policy?), but when a majority of editors active at any given time agree on a particular edit (in this case, removing criticism), that's how it goes. Take up the issue on the talk page, explain your arguments clearly, and maybe other editors will agree to the changes you're proposing. Realistically, in American politics-related articles, this probably won't happen, but it's the only way. Wikipedia is reliable for things like mathematics or chemistry, but you have to take articles about present-day politics with more than just a grain of salt, once you've seen how the sausage is made. There's no use getting too invested in it. It is what it is.

@MelanieN: Not that the above diffs you list above don't show edit warring, but you are involved at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as you told me once when I asked you to intervene on the talk page there, in what was a pretty clear case of sanctionable behavior. There is an exception in WP:INVOLVED for things like obvious vandalism, where it could be assumed that other admins would take the same action. However, I think that would have held equally in the diff I link above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thucydides I hear where you are coming from but the issue I have is what is there to really discuss when everything is reliably sourced and accurate? If you study the users who removed all the RS info that I added, everything that they post is biased/slanted in one direction (i.e. Trump is horrible and he must have colluded with the Russians). There is still very much an open debate about that (not the horrible part, lol, but the collusion part). Yet it seems everyone who edits on these articles only edits in one direction. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work as far as I am aware. For the record, I am no fan of Trump's policies even though it may appear that way from my edits. As a center-left person I probably disagree with 80%+ of his political stances. The point is that there is no balance any more on Wikipedia: it is all in one direction (again, Trump is a secret Russian agent who is controlled by Putin). PZP-003 (talk) 06:37, March 17, 2018‎ (UTC)

There's no answer to the problem you're encountering. Edit warring isn't an answer - you'll simply get blocked. Wikipedia's policies don't really have a good way of dealing with a situation in which a majority of editors want to tilt an article in a certain direction. That's why articles about highly contentious topics - especially in present-day politics - are not to be trusted. Wikipedia's model works well for articles about copper smelting, influenza or the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, but the second you touch an article that might get a large number of people in the present day riled up, it's a different story. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

"wikipedia's policies don't really have a good way of dealing with a situation in which a majority of editors want to tilt an article in a certain direction" ...thank you for having the decency to acknowledge this. PZP-003 (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please explain why I have to wait 24 hours plus "take it to the talk page and get consensus" to re-insert the info if it has been reliably sourced and accurate? Is it because other editors here don't like the information I added. Why would they change their mind if I take it to the talk page?? They will probably use same bullying tactics they seem to be employing right now by undoing the edits. Why do they get to censor Wikipedia, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an open balanced friendly website where people can contribute to articles? Just for the record, everything I added is balanced, accurate, and taken from reliable sources. PZP-003 (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You have to wait 24 hours because you engaged in edit warring after receiving a specific warning. Edit warring is not allowed even if you are convinced that you are correct. If you studiously avoid edit warring in the future, then you will never be blocked for that again. Content in our articles is developed by consensus among all editors interested in that article, and we achieve consensus by discussing things on the article's talk page. Hollering "censorship" never works here because no government makes these decisions. This is a private website with its own policies and guidelines developed by the community. You can contribute but only if you follow our policies and guidelines. That is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

PZP, these rules - installed by the Arbitration Committee which is as close as we get here to a definitive judge - are imposed for subjects that are so controversial that special editing restrictions are necessary to keep them from becoming war zones. Those restrictions apply to everyone, from brand-new users to administrators. I think you now understand about the "wait 24 hours before doing it again" rule, known as the WP:1RR or one-revert rule; that's pretty straightforward. A harder one to understand is the "controversial material" rule: that if you add something to the article, and someone (more commonly several someones) remove it, that means it is controversial. There will have to be discussion and some kind of consensus before it can be added again. Here's what made me think you may not understand this yet: when you self-reverted your third addition, you indicated in your edit summary you thought you would be able to add it again when 24 hours have passed. No, you can't. You can't add it again until it has been discussed and some kind of agreement has been reached that it is valid material for the article. So I would suggest, while you have this time-out from editing, that you figure out what you are going to say on the talk page, how you are going to defend the material or argue for its inclusion. Then tomorrow when you are able to edit again, take it to the talk pages of both articles and start a discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN thanks for the advice but you seem to still be missing the point so I will repeat it here again: the issue that I have is what is there to discuss for "consensus" when if you study the users who removed all the RS info that I added, everything that they post is biased/slanted in one direction (i.e. Trump is horrible and he must have colluded with the Russians). There is still very much an open debate about that (not the horrible part, lol, but the collusion part). Yet it seems everyone who edits on these articles only edits in one direction (these are not objective fair users, they have an agenda that should be clear for all to see based on how they immediately remove any reliably sourced information that other users like myself contribute to the article). That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work as far as I am aware. For the record, I am no fan of Trump's policies even though it may appear that way from my edits. As a center-left person I probably disagree with 80%+ of his political stances. The point is that there is no balance any more on Wikipedia: ALL DATA GOES IN ONE DIRECTION i.e. Trump is a secret Russian agent who is controlled by Putin. PZP-003 (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes but the issue is what is there to discuss when everything is reliably sourced and accurate? That is what I'm confused about. And I am not "hollering" censorship...there is clearly censorship going on here. Just look at the editors who removed all the RS info that I added. Everything they post is biased/slanted in one direction (i.e. Trump is horrible and he must have colluded with the Russians). There is still very much an open debate about that (not the horrible part, lol, but the collusion part). Yet it seems everyone who edits on these articles only edits in one direction. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work as far as I am aware. For the record, I am no fan of Trump's policies even though it may appear that way from my edits. As a center-left person I probably disagree with 80%+ of his political stances. The point is that there is no balance any more on Wikipedia: it is all in one direction (again, Trump is a secret Russian agent who is controlled by Putin). PZP-003 (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Read the talk page. The info you want to add has already been added under " House". User MelanieN added it before your edits occurred. It's not ready for the lede yet, per talk page conversations. Read the talk page and it will make sense. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

When you add entire paragraphs written completely in a bold font, that is the functional equivalent of hollering. Your fellow editors will usually interpret it that way. If you do not engage in talk page discussions, you cannot be a successful editor of controversial articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. That's good advice from Cullen328. Also, copying whole paragraphs from above, and then bolding them, does not give them, or you, more credibility.

You state your observation as an accusation: "Just look at the editors who removed all the RS info that I added. Everything they post is biased/slanted in one direction..." Don't accuse editors in that way. AGF. There may be a legitimate reason why it appears that way. Maybe they are depending on RS which have that bias and slant. Truth is not centrist. It tends to be to one side or the other, depending on the historical context. Sometimes left-wingers are more right, and at other times right-wingers are. In this case, all the evidence and intelligence reports tend toward the Trump administration hiding a whole lot of activities, lying a lot, hiding lots of meetings, and when it's revealed, it often turns out to be illegal and/or shady activities.

Only the Trump/GOP/Putin-friendly sources (Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Infowars, RT, Sputnik, etc.) say otherwise with their cover-up/distraction/conspiracy theories which fact checkers keep on debunking. Those are unreliable sources for political content, so don't use them, and frankly, don't even read them, except for research (What are the fringe wingnuts saying?) When doing such research, be very careful, because what they write is written to convince you of false ideas. Will you be able to resist that pernicious influence? Only very well-informed people can live up to the following: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

So there is, after all, a reason why the content added by experienced editors has that "bias" and "slants" that way. It's because that is the slant found in RS. Unreliable sources have a different slant, and we don't blindly cater to such sources here. Editors who constantly resist and complain about that content are revealing that they are imbibers of ideas from unreliable sources, and such editors create problems and often get blocked.

I have a "message for fringe political editors" on my talk page: If your personal POV is based on unreliable sources, unlike the ones we use in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Trump–Russia dossier, then you will likely disagree with those articles and run afoul of our disdain for editors who push pro Trump/GOP/Russia conspiracy theories. Don't be surprised when such views also violate WP:TALK and get redacted. Just sayin'... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Alliance for Securing Democracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 06:05, March 17, 2018 (UTC)