User talk:Theadjuster

This user talk page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Smith, Charlie (29 April 2017). "Christy Clark's Wikipedia entry undergoes frequent edits". straight.com. Retrieved 30 April 2017. Many of the edits on Clark's profile were performed by "adjuster", who is listed as a "blocked user".

Welcome

Hello, Theadjuster, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Tuanminh01 (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

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).

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

Request reason:

This entire warring scenario began when unidentifiable editors began deleting entire passages of my copy from politician Christy Clark's page under the heading of "controversies" and it so happens that the timing of these deletions aligned with the beginning of said politician's election campaign, toward reelection as Premier of British Columbia. I believe that a careful study of the copy and references will show that the copy is legitimate, and that the copy is situated correctly on the page, under "Controversies", and that the copy does reference a host of legitimate and verifiable issues pertaining to the history and performance of said politician. Wikipedia guidelines are clear that contested copy (around tone, neutrality, etc.) should be taken up piecemeal and altered or improved if necessary but is not to be deleted en masse. Upon seeking higher Wikipedia Admin support to point out these infractions I was met instead with stalwart edit values and "good faith" suppositions, all of which were seemingly irrelevant as I could not "talk" with the original editors who deleted passages, when I visited their talk page I found no sign of activity. Also I am relatively new and did not even know how to find the talk page for CC until further along, despite best efforts to respond....Most recently my wife did chime in on my behalf, but this was out of her own insistence and not my bidding. Seems unfair to be further penalized for this, just trying to clarify a position that seems to be going unrecognized, or overlooked, or ignored... As for my Mediararus account I was up front with this from the beginning, it is connected to my first and forgotten account with Wikipedia, never used, but I logged in unknowingly with this account as I was logged in via gmail and then did not recognize the different User account until after a few edits. Not sock-puppeting! Never used this account before or since, you will see. And the account is linked to me and not to a made up profile. No intention of sabotage or hiding my profile at all. I don't appreciate the suggestions from editors which suggest otherwise--like a pack of wolves jumping on me, to conclusions... For what its worth, I've brought this matter to the attention of other media, taking an interest in this story, as it appears to others and not just me that this is was a case of political interference, ie. there is an agenda to clear the "controversies" section from Christy Clark's Wikipedia page, timely as it is, during her election campaign... I am still hoping that some reasonable Administrator might intervene here and take a good look at the history on the page--see who deleted what and how, when...verify for yourself if the copy is legitimate, well-cited, etc and if there is problem with tone/neutrality then raise in talk and let's discuss but PLEASE can we not see that outright deletion of verifiable content is not okay and suspicious--ie. not in good faith ?? Theadjuster (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Appeal declined. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:22, 18 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.

Take a look, for instance, at Marvello123 below, visit the talk page, and tell me if this is a legitimate editor?

This is a discretionary sanctions block and as such this appeal needs to be copied to WP:AE. I will do this but in light of the above, recommend that you be topic banned from all WP:BLP articles. Do you want to proceed with the appeal? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Theadjuster: I've edited the article in question, so I'm too involved to review your block (and as NeilN says, it's an AE block anyway), but I can still comment on it and make some suggestions. Firstly, you will not get yourself unblocked by attacking those who disagreed with you. Secondly, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to say "it so happens that the timing of these deletions aligned with the beginning of said politician's election campaign", when your construction of that huge list of controversies coincided with the beginning of that campaign in the first place? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking anyone. I am suggesting there might be political interference. Please explain to me: The controversies exist, and are on the record. So how is it wrong for these controversies to be recorded, on the record, under a "Controversies" section? On the other hand, to delete this copy is an infraction of Wikipedia guidelines, no? Why is there not a discussion about tone/neutrality instead? When MelbourneStar raised specific issues, I attended to them immediately. Somehow this "good faith" is overlooked? I really do not appreciate the sentiments coming from Boing! said Zebedee who acts as though there can be no power imbalance in the world and transfers such Oz-like fantasies to a role of editing this OPEN SOURCE record. Now deleting also the verifiable "controversies" on Rich Coleman's page. At this rate, you'll have all scandals and corruption tidily wiped clean from all accounts everywhere. Nice work.

I call for an independent Admin to review my case and to read my Unblock request above. I feel as if I am currently being treated unfairly by a cabal of limited-minded editors. Sorry to say, but for the record, that's that. Theadjuster (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's in WP:BLP policy, and WP:UNDUE. Articles about living people should not be slanted to overwhelmingly concentrate on negative material (in this case effectively turning the Christy Clark and Rich Coleman articles into political hit pieces). Also, the same policy says that contested BLP material can be removed by anyone, so it is not an infraction of any Wikipedia guideline to do so, and the onus is then on whoever wants to add it to discuss it on the article talk page and seek consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you say you're not attacking anyone but you go on to call those who contest your additions as "a cabal of limited-minded editors"? I suggest you be very careful what you say next, as continuing attacks like that is likely to lose you the ability to edit this talk page too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying your appeal to WP:AE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Theadjuster --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hello, I'm Marvello123. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Christy Clark seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Marvello123 (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Christy Clark. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The content, the tone -- even the format (ie. headings) -- does not appear to be of neutral point of view. Your edits have been disputed: discuss them on the article's talk page, and gain consensus before adding such controversial information back in. I'll remind you, extra discretion and care must be taken as the article is of a biography of a living person. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material was copied directly from the New York Times website, and thus was a copyright violation. Please don't add copyright material to this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Christy Clark. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 18:48, 16 April 2017 (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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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} 04:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now receiving media requests for clarification on why certain material from Christy Clark's Wikipedia page (under "Controversies") has been deleted from the public record... I have distributed copies of the original info, together with live screen capture of the content before it was deleted. They, like me, do not understand how this deletion and my block is rationalized by Wikipedia editors. Will any of the involved editors offer their direct contact info please? And then you are welcome to qualify your position with the journalists. Thanks Theadjuster (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists may register an account on Wikipedia and e-mail me using the "Email this user" link. I would expect them to prove who they are. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. 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} 05:12, 17 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."

Block now upped to a week for block evasion. Further instances of evasion will result in longer blocks. Follow the instructions in the message above to appeal your block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy trumps pretty much all other policies about improving article text etc, and when article content is removed as a possible violation of that policy, it's no good demanding that it be reinstated and making accusations against those who removed it - and you certainly should not be editing logged out to evade your block or by getting someone else to do it for you. The only way you would be allowed to reinstate any of the removed content would be to get a prior consensus in support of it by discussion on the article's talk page. First, you need to either sit out your block or make a convincing case for being unblocked (as directed in the block message). Then you would need to start that discussion that I mentioned and wait for an uninvolved editor to judge the consensus. But the way you are going, I have to say, is more likely to get you a topic ban from these articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from editing in the BLP topic area, specifically any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people, or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles of any page in any namespace. This ban lasts for 3 months.

You have been sanctioned for continuous BLP violations with no indication disruptive behavior will cease in the future. Additionally, for the reasons discussed here.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

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} 21:01, 27 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."

I suspect you were expecting this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Commons-emblem-hand.svg/50px-Commons-emblem-hand.svg.png You are in violation of your own codes and guidelines...this experience no different than attending a court of law, ego'd gatekeepers, active threads in our fabric of hegemony, lost in some inane and obsessive pursuit for Oz-inspired objectivity and neutrality. Not a clue as to the real and potent vibration that was once associated with our language. You are sheep who found wolf work, undercover. So glad the likes of you all are very far removed from my daily life. Take care and good luck.Theadjuster (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I ask everyone reviewing this log to consider for yourself if there existed issues of tone or neutrality to warrant complete deletion of 1500+ words outlining years of well-documented scandals and corruption during the tenure of this B.C. politician and premier. Close examination of the history of this page will show that the majority of the "controversies" section was wiped clean without any discussion. The original segment that remains was written by me and somehow it is okay? Or will that now be erased as well? And how is it any different, in tone, or veracity, from the copy that was deleted? No difference. This passage remains I think only because the original vandal could not remove it, according to the limits set by the Wiki. I'm sure the same goes for the remaining entry re. the upcoming election. This all points to the arbitrary nature of this mess, and one must question also the notion that a page section can be overwhelmed when there exists verifiably overwhelming circumstances. At this rate, by my experience with this page, there would be no reason for anybody to believe in Wikipedia as definitive, or crowd-sourced, or even as a sample of truth. There has been no fact-checking of content erased. There has been no overt effort to work with the verifiable and well-cited content. Instead there has been a concerted effort to delete the entirety of copy dedicated to controversies, in a section dedicated to controversies.

For those interested, and I hope you are out there, please have a look at the original list of deleted controversies, complete with citations, as can be found here: (Redacted) Thank youTheadjuster (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you are using your talk page to continue arguing about the content of a WP:BLP page in violation of your ban, I have revoked your ability to edit this page too. If you wish to appeal further, see WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]