User talk:Credo123

Tags

Tags should not be removed until the issue is resolved.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

NPA

Please note accusing users of vandalism without very good reason (yes that includes calling their edits vandalism) violates wp:npa. I feel reading WP:NOTDUMB might be of some value.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Response: This note is irrelevant and inapplicable, as I never accused anyone of "vandalism." There were inaccuracies in prior edits that needed to be corrected. In fact, the previous edits showed only one (negative) side of the story while leaving out key context. These biographies should be unbiased and objective, and not attempt to only portray individuals in a negative light.

[[1] "possible BLP issue or vandalism", thus you imply the edit was vandalism. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, come on man. That's the automatic tag added by some bot. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then they should take more care.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that bot is not always very sharp. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What I mean is I take care when using bots so as not undo for the wrong reason (for example). But then I tend to not use bots to just do that kind of edit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Having said that, Credo123, you should REALLY provide proper edit summaries, and better sourcing. Don't tell me you were citing Facebook in one of your edits. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not pick up on that, but then they have removed the primary source tag.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)R

Response: Did you look at the Facebook link? It was advertising the speaking engagement in Crookston. Facebook is used to advertise events. It is a perfectly acceptable source in this case, since the statement was about his speaking engagement in Crookston. Why would you remove the segment on Crookston unless you are willfully trying to make Michael Voris look bad? It's clear from your comments that you are trying to smear Voris as "right-wing" "fringe" rather than presenting a balanced, unbiased, objective biography of someone whose views you may disagree with. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia and is an abuse of editing privileges.

Facebook is not generally an RS (see wp:primary). I also would suggest you do not make PA#s against admins.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You haven't explained why you would remove a segment on the Crookston diocese controversy. It can't be because a Facebook post was cited.

Why not? If something is unsourced or badly sourced it can be removed (please read WP:ONUS).Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What specifically was "badly sourced" about that segment, other than your claim about the Facebook citation? Everything relied on objective media sources, including official statements from the diocese, the metropolitan archbishop and other press.

Its called policy, we have rule regarding sources, one is wp:rs, another (and I am sure I have already made you aware of this) is wp:primary. All content must abide by our polices or it can be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

SPA

I also feel you need to read wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

BLP

You need to read wp:v, a source has to explicitly say something, it is does not say (for example) homosexual neither can we. This violated both wp:blp and wp:crime.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Michael Voris, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do NOT lard BLP articles with promotional and poorly verified trivia. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I did not use Wikipedia for "soapboxing, promotion or advertising." I provided facts about significant events that took place involving Voris - and you deleted them, calling him "lunatic," "fringe" and "right-wing." You're a biased admin who's happy to silence dissenting viewpoints.

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.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You have now breached wp:RR and its an admin. I would be very surprised to not see a block.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

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).

Credo123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It's clear from Drmies notes accompanying his multiple deletions of my contributions that he's engaged in highly biased editing of the Michael Voris page (calling him "lunatic" "fringe" "right-wing." I'm trying to provide a more balanced picture providing full context, citing objective sources from third parties, or, where appropriate, citing Michael's own positions as stated in his own words (which necessarily require citing Voris' own articles where Voris' own position is stated). Yet Drmies keeps taking down my edits because he dislikes the viewpoint - yet I am the one who is blocked? This is a clearcut case of censoring a viewpoint you don't like and attempting to present Voris in the most negative light possible. Credo123 (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Any unblock request you make should only address your own behavior; as this request does not do that, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

RESPONSE: Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says Wikipedia has turned into a leftist cesspool, and has lost its original neutrality. That's been utterly clear in the edits and deletions made to my revisions attempting to provide a more balanced picture of Voris. Anything that could possibly present him in a fair light was immediately deleted, with the bogus claim that it was "badly sourced" - even though my sources went directly to secular media, a state grand jury report and diocesan statements. Wikipedia is now a joke run by biased "cancel culture" administrators. (BTW - the official Michael Voris bio page makes a note of Wikipedia's bias.)

Credo123 I suggest you withdraw this appeal, actually read what you are supposed to say and then explain how YOU (and only you) did not breach policy or will not do so again.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Credo123, I am indeed an administrator here, which means I probably know a bit about what's going on--but note that an uninvolved admin placed the block. I invoke WP:CRYBLP, since my reverts of your edits are in congruence with our policy on Biographies of Living People. I will continue cleaning the article of promotional and BLP-violating content. It's pretty clear what you are doing: you are including every little bit of "controversy" (and none of your controversies are real controversies, because there are no reliable sources) in order to generate content for this guy, whose article should probably be redirected to the article for his website--if that is even notable. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

COI

Do you have a wp:coi with "Michael"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)