User talk:Smalltime0

Note[edit]

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.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring[edit]

Wikipedia articles are edited based upon consensus. Edit-warring against this consensus w/r/t the well-sourced description of Richard B. Spencer as a white supremacist is disruptive, and if you continue, you will most likely end up blocked for escalating periods or indefinitely, if you demonstrate by your editing behavior that you're not interested in abiding by our policies and norms. You have two options here: accept the consensus, or work to change the consensus. You may not simply ignore the consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning[edit]

When you (and everybody else) were warned against changing the description of the subject from "white supremacist" to "white nationalist" at Richard B. Spencer, I see you moved over to edit warring the same change about the same person into Alt-right. Looking at the timestamps, I don't see how you can possibly have thought that was acceptable, even apart from the fact that edit warring is never acceptable on Wikipedia. You're a hair's-breadth from a block for disruptive editing right now. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The current sources don't support the descriptor. At best the wiki description is incorrect, at worst it is libel. Spencer believes the Chinese and Jews to be intellectually superior to whites. He has said so many times. He thinks that Africans are physically superior. He thinks Europeans have a geographical advantage with some sort of happy medium of racial traits. He is, I think, an idiot. But he doesn't believe whites to be superior to other races.

Please read NorthBySouthBaranof's note to you above carefully. He gives you good advice for how to stay within Wikipedia policy, and hence how to stay unblocked: "You have two options here: accept the consensus, or work to change the consensus. You may not simply ignore the consensus". Bishonen | talk 16:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

April 2017[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

Smalltime0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. The consensus I was banned for is really just shoddily done primary research by a "reputable" resource. Smalltime0 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined as per WP:SNOWBALL. You are welcome to make a more considered request, however. Yamla (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2017 (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.

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).

Smalltime0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My request is valid, their sources don't support the assertion of the article, and leaves wiki vulnerable to libel. Just because there is a consensus on the talk page conducted over a limited period proves nothing.

Decline reason:

Does prove that you don't understand Wikipedia policy well enough to be allowed to edit here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:26, 3 April 2017 (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.

"Just because there is a consensus on the talk page". Maybe stop digging? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 3 April 2017 (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).

Smalltime0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I respect the wiki rules, and have followed them for about a decade -- but this is beyond the pale. The consensus is flawed, please review it. There is a libel case in the making if there isn't some serious discussion on the topic. Smalltime0 (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring against consensus. That is never acceptable. Also, please withdraw libel case before the block expires. Wikipedia does not allow wp:legal threats and you may be indefinitely banned if you persist. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2017 (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.

Very experienced editors participated in the RFC, including two admins. An arbcom member commented after the RFC. And now you have Bish and me looking at the page. I'd strongly suggest dropping the libel angle as you are obviously unfamiliar with what the term actually means, legally. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 3 April 2017 (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).

Smalltime0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not threatening a case, I am saying that as the edits stand, they open a libel case. Publishing unfounded comment opens you to libel, it is how common law works. I don't care if I get indefinitely banned over this, as I am defending the integrity of wikipedia. I am just trying, apparently in vain, to bring wiki into something legally and factually defensible. Please actually review the resources cited by this "consensus"Smalltime0 (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; this isn't an unblock request, it's just a reply to Vanjagenije's comments above. I note that talk page access has been removed for the duration of the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2017 (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.

Because of WP:IDHT, I have revoked talk page access for the duration of this block. The user remains free to use WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]