Mav214

January 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Make America Great Again, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

What was invalid about the edit? I see no reason for it to be reverted Mav214 (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You removed cited content without sufficient explanation; you deeming it 'irrelevant' is not sufficient reason, as someone else thought it very relevant. If you disagree with the content, please offer a better reason for its removal on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

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.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

I think you need to quickly learn what we mean by a reliable source, and how to use talk pages. Guy (help!) 17:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I regret to inform you that because something doesn't agree with your political views, it is not "disruptive" I know what a properly sourced article is and I am editing within the rules and accurately. I apologize that you disagree politically. Tolerance is key.

Adding your personal observations without benefit of a reliable source is indeed disruptive, and doubly so when repeated after it's been reverted. You can trust me on this: I have been an admin here for over 14 years. Or you can carry on as you are and we'll see who's right through experiment. Your call I guess. Guy (help!) 17:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and want you to know I am not at all undermining your experience here on Wikipedia, it is very extensive and impressive. However, based off your lack of concrete reasoning and clearly slanted political bias, I would appreciate if my judge, jury, and executioner at least be an unbiased administrator. If this revision was accidental, please use the Sandbox.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foreign-policy/ Here is additional evidence that I provided a credible source with relevant information (assuming you are not a left wing crusader such as yourself)

Any legitimate and constructive feedback is obviously welcome from a man of your experience. Please let me know how I can further improve my edits as long as it is not politically charged like this instance. Thank you

How do I combat bullies such as yourself on Wikipedia?

Sure. My advice is:

1. Discuss any significant edits on the Talk page first, at least until you've gained sufficient experience to avoid the many elephant traps around the political subject area;
2. Ensure that any changes you propose are drawn from reliable independent sources, noting especially that many sources are often proposed but have been found to be generally unreliable. Oh, that includes Media Bias Fact Check, by the way: "There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings."

Is there any reason for me to believe that Foreign Policy is an unreliable source though? It has won numerous journalism awards from various sites that are reliable independent sources.

That's it, really. Nothing too difficult or onerous, and you'll soon get the hang of it. Keep calm and take small steps. Charging in to Right Great Wrongs is rarely a recipe for success. Guy (help!) 20:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

A friendly advice

I see you tend to edit mostly articles related to politics. From what I know, those subject are likely to get you banned or have your edit rights restricted. From experience, I know that the majority of people editing Wikipedia are leftists; since Wikipedia relies on its community and said community's consensus, it is likely you will find yourself at odd with most people in the articles you edit, i.e. articles related to politics. To quote Antandrus: "A related point is that Wikipedia is often accused of having a 'liberal bias'. The only bias it has arises from the self-selection of its members: people are here because they are the ones who want to contribute to an open-content project. You're going to get a lot of 'libertarian left' here by the project's very nature."
Maybe try other, less polarized subjects which you would like to edit. Also, you should try Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. You are correct and it is a shame that the project has taken a turn from the original purpose of a Neutral_point_of_view. I believe it is very important with a site as commonly referred to as Wikipedia that it accurately portrays these political issues with a neutral point of view. Mav214 (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2020‎ (UTC)

You know how you check the background of a source before you use it? Do the same with advice. Don't discount or accept advice based on your degree of agreement with the person giving it. That's called positive feedback and leads to extreme results. You should also be aware that NPOV does not mean a false balance - for example: the neutral view on climate change is that it is happening and that human activity is the dominant cause; the neutral view on the origins of life on earth is that it is the result of random mutation and natural selection over billions of years. I pointed you at WP:RSP. Breitbart is not allowed as a source, neither is Occupy Democrats, and both for the same reason: unreliability, not bias. We allow biased sources, we do not allow sources with a history of promoting conspiracy theories. Follow my advice above. Discuss on Talk first, bring reliable sources to the discussion, and you should be fine. Of course if I was the evil far left autocrat that is the conservative stereotype of a Wikipedia admin, I would give you very different advice, or merely block you. Guy (help!) 16:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Please focus on our conversation Guy, you completely missed my point here. I am simply filling a void of conservative balance. The advice I was "discounting" was the notion that I have no business editing political pages and a liberal slant is just the way it is. For example, claiming the phrase Make America Great Again is racist as well as it's positioning on the top of that page clearly has extreme liberal slant to it, that is not neutral. The information I added from a credible source was simply highlighting that fact. You still have not provided reasoning for the revert! You keep saying I'm using a dis-credible source, but I for the life of me cannot find a sliver of evidence that supports your notion.Mav214 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Make America Great Again

Hello, you have been editing a sentence I wrote on the Make America Great Again page, and I wanted to open a discussion about the sentence.

You also added a sentence right below mine, and yours is a very good sentence. I read the article you sited, and it is a good article.

I would prefer you not change my sentence, however, at least not without discussing it with me first.

Like you, I have only made a few edits on Wikipedia. I am not an administrator or anything like that. But I think it is important to get the first part of this article correct, which I believe you are trying to do as well. Hopefully, we share that goal. Maybe we can work together to get the first part right?

Please see my Talk page if you want to see my thinking when I wrote the sentence in 2019.

I am happy to discuss any other thoughts you may have. Thanks and best wishes. Steveok1 (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveok1 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate you reaching out in this manner, what word would work there besides 'critic'? The article cited is an opinion article that is geared towards criticizing the slogan, thus making her a critic. Do you disagree? The extension of the quote has merit, however I think it is important that is is made clear that it is an opinion of one person rather than fact the way it is portrayed now.Mav214 (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe the VOA article is an opinion article. I agree it is dealing with a difficult, controversial subject (as is the Wikipedia article). I believe Voice of America aims for a "neutral point of view" with this article, just as Wikipedia tries to do. And I believe your article from the Detroit Free Press also had a neutral point of view. The authors of the VOA article and the Detroit Free Press article are journalists and report news as neutrally as possible to their audiences, and they are not opinion columnists. Voice of America in particular has a legal mandate and mission to be fact-based and neutral, and this is one way it maintains bipartisan support and funding. Again I agree with you this is very tough subject matter, and it is challenging to be neutral. But I think we may actually have reached a balance by having your sentence after mine. And I appreciate your reply, as well. Steveok1 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is asserting an opinion (that the phrase is racial in nature), if you read the article you will see that. It is not reporting on a current event or providing a factual report. It is asserting her opinion that the phrase is racist. I will reinsert the word "critic" if you feel that VoA is a neutral source (which I agree on) because this is not a neutral view point by this particular author. Likewise, if you read the authors other work, she is very outspokenly critical of President Trump. In sum it is very opinionated. Mav214 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

First, I undid your change. I assume in good faith you were just showing what you meant, but please do not make other changes to the sentence unless we agree here first.

Second, Wikipedia's standard is a source must be "reliable." You stated VoA is reliable, but you question the author. I explained above that VoA expects all their journalists to be neutral, as described in their mission and to receive bipartisan support and funding. If you would like to ask Wikipedia to judge the source, you can. I believe, just like your Detroit Free Press source, the VoA and author are clearly reliable.

Third, why do you say the article is asserting an opinion? Because it is dealing with a tough topic (race)? Like your article, it is an analytical news article. The VoA article makes a statement (the quote) based on evidence presented in the article (see below for details). It is not an "opinion" any more than evolution based on natural selection, because it is based on clear, neutral evidence from other reliable sources. Again feel free to challenge the source with Wikipedia as reliable if you like.

Fourth, the quote does not even say the phrase is racist. The quote says the slogan "appeal[s] to people who hear it as racist." Is that 1% of people? 10% of people? I don't know, but the article presents strong evidence it does appeal to some people who hear it as racist.

Fifth, here is the strong evidence in the article from other neutral, reliable sources. VoA talked to Daryl Davis, who has convinced people to leave the KKK (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Daryl_Davis) and who has been attacked by Black Lives Matter because they say he is too nice to racists. I think Daryl Davis is very credible, and he says the slogan appeals to people who hear it as racist. The author also talked to a former neo-Nazi who tries to convince people to leave racist organizations, and he agreed the slogan appeals to people who hear it as racist. According to a September 2016 poll discussed in the article, blacks did not feel America was "greater" in the past than present day, and the article also tells the story of two white teenagers who wore MAGA hats on the campus of Howard University, a historically black university, and they were confronted by students. This is also evidence of a racial divide. Why? My point is not to say the phrase is racist, but the article shows clear evidence it appeals to some people who hear it as racist, and then other people react. Again feel free to challenge the sources mentioned in the article as reliable with Wikipedia.

Sixth, I understand you may not want MAGA to be a controversial statement, but clearly it appeals to *some* people in this way and that causes issues. We know some people react to MAGA in negative ways (do you not agree?), and the article presents evidence it is not just because of the president, but because of what some people hear in the phrase. That *must* be part of the story here.

Overall, if you want to challenge my source (and the sources used as evidence in the article) as reliable with Wikipedia, you can. Otherwise, please leave the sentence alone. If you have other ideas or suggestions, please let me know. Thank you. And I still respect your discussion here. Steveok1 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The point you are refusing to accept is what is opinion and what is fact. I respect you taking the moral high ground here but this is a discussion not a contest. I do not want the article to be “non controversial” but rather make the slanting more even. I’m going to reword the sentence so my part goes first if you feel that it is perfect the way it is, you adding significant wording I feel drowns out the latter points which is not neutral.

I appreciate your passion but try to stick to the matter at hand and take emotion out of it. No need for 6 separate replies. Makes it difficult to respond.

In sum, what makes her feelings towards this phrase racist? Is it in an encyclopedia? Can you measure racial undertones with a meter or instrument? No, that means it is an opinion Mav214 (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, I feel the default should be the original edit. So your stance that where it is final and any changes I would like to make should go through you I feel should be reversed. If you want to make any revisions to my sentence please ask me here first Mav214 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I just typed a response on my talk page, but you bring up other issues here. The VoA article is analytic journalism and as shown in the diagram, this includes interpretation, but it is not commentary (opinion), which is outside the diagram. The VoA article is like analytic journalism done by Fox News (news and web site), but different from an opinion piece, which would be an editorial or Fox News talk shows. The Wikipedia article on reliable/perennial sources draws a similar distinction. Opinion pieces in print journalism are almost always labeled as labeled as "editorial, commentary, column/columnist and letters." This is a big clue the VoA article is not an opinion piece. The use of evidence and overall format of the article show it is analytic journalism. As another example, the Washington Post labels articles "Analysis" when they are analytic journalism and defines this as "Interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data, as well as anticipating how events might unfold based on past events." Would it have helped if VoA had labeled this article "Analysis"? Sure. But as the API article shows, not all publications label articles as analysis, but they almost always label opinions. It is clear to me the article is journalism, not opinion. Therefore, the author should be called a journalist, not a critic. Steveok1 (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also fair point this is a discussion and the goal on Wikipedia is collaboration and coming to fair, rational decisions. When I called it "my sentence," I meant that I originally wrote it in 2019, just like the following sentence you originally wrote. I felt it was fair for us to leave each other's sentences alone. But you are right: on Wikipedia, we are supposed to work together on any sentence. Also my 6 points were trying to respond to questions and issues you raised, but let's move on. I think we are at the core of the matter now: deciding whether this is opinion or (analytic) journalism. Steveok1 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Mav214, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Graywalls (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, if you haven't already, carefully reading through the two links in the first paragraphs will save you a lot of problems, paying close attention to WP:UGC. Cheers, Graywalls (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind welcome. I am very careful to use reliable sources. What in particular are you referring to? Mav214 (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory 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; read about 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. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Please note that the article in question is subject to a WP:1RR restriction under the contentious topics procedure, which you have already violated with this edit. I recognize that you cannot self-revert, as your edit has already been undone by another editor, but please refrain from any further edit warring behaviour, and attempt to gain consensus for your proposal on the relevant Talk page or noticeboard. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  The additions of false and falsehood wordings are merely assumptions rather than verified fact. Any reasonable individual would agree that to prove the allegations false is impossible. Proving no compensation was transferred is impossible. It's important to note that lack of evidence is different than proving false. Mav214 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I would suggest that you take a look at WP:NOTTRUTH. All Wikipedia articles, including the one we are discussing, must be based on what is stated in reliable sources, and not on what editors believe to be true, or false, or unproven. Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You are correct. However a consensus must be reached which has occurred in the talk section of this page. By definition, a lack of evidence does not prove a claim false, it simply remains an allegation. Thank you for your attentions to my edits and your contributions to Wikipedia. Mav214 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring 2

Your recent editing history at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory 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; read about 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. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I ask you that you respect the consensus of the respective page's talk page consensus that the language is inaccurate as a lack of evidence does not constitute a disproven claim. If you have any further issues I ask that you refer to my talk page rather than abusing authority to promote false claims. Mav214 (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I am indeed addressing your behavior on your talk page. No matter how right you may be, edit warring is always wrong.

There is a dispute resolution process that is far from exhausted before you can claim there is a consensus to overturn the longstanding language on that article. Consensus is not determined by a simple vote count. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no Talk consensus for removing false. I see a good number of editors who misunderstand the specific, narrow scope of the article. Multiple reliable sources (see reference #1) flatly call the allegation false. soibangla (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I can see your misunderstanding. The sources draw a conclusion without utilizing facts to back them up. For a source to be valid it must provide concrete or analytical evidence which is not presented nor possible in this scenario. Likewise, there is more than enough on both sides to determine the consensus is certainly not that the allegations are false. Would you like to prove otherwise? Mav214 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you may not understand the way reliable sources are used on enwiki - editors are not mandated to evaluate the evidence sources may or may not provide, in the way you suggest. Please see WP:OR. Also, please pay more attention to consensus established on relevant Talk pages and less attention to your personal evaluation of the contents of sources. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

did you examine the reference #1 sources? they don't say "false just because we say so." in recent weeks many have been trying to resuscitate this settled matter and add it to a swirl of new allegations. it was shown to be false years ago and it remains false now. again, this article is about one allegation from years ago, not all the new allegations of recent months. see: Comer investigation of Biden family soibangla (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is a conclusion not evidence. In the provided page the conclusion is "Found no evidence of wrongdoing" as I'm sure you are aware. This does not prove the assertation is "false" it simply states that it is unproven. Mav214 (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Found no evidence of wrongdoing does not appear in the article. Multiple reliable sources say it is false, right up top, from the getgo. soibangla (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is behind a paywall so I cannot see the particular wording you refer to. However two things must be considered.

1) What you are referring to is a writer's opinion which is not a reliable source as you can see hereWikipedia:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion

2) The Wikipedia page you have cited clearly states that the allegations are unproven, not false.

I'm not following what is proving your stance as fact. Mav214 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

what article have I cited here is behind a paywall? neither of the two Wikipedia articles I have cited here contains the word unproven. Bye. soibangla (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Well I see you have altered the wording now which would be in violation of the NPOV policy. Likewise I would like to inform you and User:Valjean that the edits being made are clear disruptive editing and this is your notice to refrain from further edit warring. Mav214 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Also FYI, last line in the opening section that you cited :). You're welcome. Self citations are also not valid and I request you modify your comments to remove these self citations. Mav214 (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

NOTHERE and RGW warrior

You are clearly WP:NOTHERE and a WP:RGW warrior who does not belong here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe this proves the abuse of authority I am referring to. When simply asserting there is bias in your determinations you dodged the accusation and counter accused. Coincidentally, this is a perfect example of how my edits are correct. Your assertion is that I don't belong here. It is impossible for you to prove or me to disprove. Therefore calling it false would be inaccurate.

I ask you respect the following guidelines you have outlined https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTHERE and refrain from disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. Mav214 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you not aware that promoting centrist language is biased editing? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It can be interpreted that way. However the edits in question are not centrist, they are factual and unbiased. Good call out though I will clarify in my page. Mav214 (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Muboshgu, the "centrist" language is deceptive as the original wording is: "My goal is to fight the censorship of right-wing points of view and keep this great site neutral." So we have a right-wing edit warrior here with a "goal" not in harmony with Wikipedia's PAG. Per this interesting research, Wikipedia's credibility immediately increases when exactly this type of editor leaves Wikipedia, whether voluntarily or by blocking/banning, so their loss is our gain. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

AN3

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. Thank you. Newimpartial (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Andre🚐 16:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andre🚐 16:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2023 (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).

Mav214 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I respected the 3RR and did not further make any revisions to the page in question, if I was in further violation please educate me on how so. Likewise, the editors making this accusation are in numerous violations of rules which I was in the process of reporting on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. In addition, the editors in question are leveraging the noticeboard in clear retaliation which is also a violation of the guidelines. I request the ability to regain editing privilege's as I was adhering to the standards of Wikipedia to the best of my understanding. Mav214 (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block reason doesn't mention "3RR" (nor 1RR). You are blocked for disruptive editing including edit warring, independently of the three-revert rule or any other similar restriction, and independently of whether you acted in good faith or not. The rest of your appeal is about others, but the block is about your behavior, so that's irrelevant too.

I am thus declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2023 (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.

Unproductive and rather irrelevant discussion ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Re: I respected the 3RR - that may technically true, but the page in question is subject to a 1RR restriction, as I pointed out to you here. Nevertheless, you went ahead and violated that restriction in this edit. So long as you pretend that your edits have been appropriate, an unblock would be most inappropriate, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Please refrain from further retaliation. I acknowledge that I violated the 1RR on that page and was unaware as I was being attacked from numerous angles and was unable to review all comments. If the edits themselves are in question I insist you provide evidence that the claims are PROVEN false rather than stating that it is unproven. This is the distinction that is what I believe makes the edits appropriate. I will yield to User:Bbb23 here. Mav214 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Would also like to add, your profile shows a clear political leaning and obvious violation of the NPOV standard of Wikipedia. I apologize that my wording confused you however my stance is one of true neutrality and I challenge you to embrace a similar stance. Mav214 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC) I don't know what it is about my profile that suggests any particular political leaning. I believe your statement falls under what enwiki considers as WP:ASPERSIONS, and I would ask you to withdraw the statement as un-WP:CIVIL. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC) I think it is reasonable given the clear pattern of stances and edits leaning towards a left wing stance. Likewise it is not Casting Aspersions unless this is something you view as offensive. I request the same civility out of you as I have been type casted, targeted as a means of intimidation, and selectively enforced as a means of bullying. If you feel this way towards me I respect that but also ask you hold yourself to these same standards. Mav214 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2023 (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).

Mav214 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I accept that I retaliated in the edit warring and unknowingly engaged in disruptive editing. I welcome further education on what details of my edits constituted a disruption. My intent was simply to enforce a NPOV which was needed in the page in question. In the future I will engage in more proper avenues to ensure these constructive edits are deemed proper.Mav214 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am not convinced right now that you editing in the area of American politics is a good idea right now, for you or the project more broadly. Maybe you can convince the next admin, but I'm not seeing it based on this. I think that you should edit in other areas in the near term, not necessarily under a formal topic ban, just an agreement- but the next admin will determine that. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2023 (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.

What are those proper avenues? I think that you have a common misunderstanding of neutral point of view. It does not mean "without bias", as all sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaulate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors in determining what to believe. You are free to read and disagree with everything presented- but if the preponderance of reliable sources(for example) call something "false", then we do too. Do you understand that if you want to remove the word "false" in the case of the article you were editing that you must demonstrate that most sources do not use that word? Also see False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The proper avenues are what you outlined above. In this case I would need to cite sources that use the proper wording of "unproven" which is the case in the majority of the articles. So next time I will go one by one. However, I ask in doing so how I would then prevent myself from engaging in an edit war? I was instantly targeted in this case which would constitute an edit war if I defended my edits. Regardless I would just like to know if I will be unblocked. I'll probably screw up many times in the future but I can assure you my edits were made in good faith. I hope you do the right thing by unblocking my account as it's a obvious case of retaliatory behavior by my reporters.Mav214 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It isn't retaliatory any more than a robbery victim calling the police is retaliatory against the perpetrator. My advice would be to refrain from editing the article at all until you first gain consensus on the talk page. American politics is one of the most contentious areas on Wikipedia (so much so it has its own special rules). If discussion fails to resolve your concerns, dispute resolution is available. I would note that you are not the first person and won't be the last person to attempt what you are trying, so you will have a much tougher road than you probably think. Are there any other topics you might edit about that don't involve American politics? 331dot (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Interest yes, opportunities are scarce (sports, current events, minor edits needed to random pages). I think a more accurate policing comparison than a robbery victim would be a split custody battle. If one parent comes to pick up the kids on their day and the other parent calls the police as a means of gaining control. That would be the more accurate example. On a similar note defending my edits (although I can assure you I won’t go revert them or make any further) is if someone robs another person but there is insufficient evidence to convict, is the statement that they robbed the individual “false”? Or is the robbery accusation unproven? It’s the difference between “Not Guilty” and acquittal. I hope that doesn’t hurt my chances of unblocking, but I feel it is an accurate parallel in self defense. Mav214 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Block appeal

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).

Mav214 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I’m sorry masters. I’ll be a good boy. I will stick to sports like you ordered me to. Please master. I just want to add some content to early to mid 2000s athletes Wikipedia pages. I learned my lesson to not speak unless the tribe approves of my edits. I know that if I step out of line and break a very subjective rule I’ll be banned indefinitely. Please let me back in. User:Valjean is a god I can recognize that and I am simply his subordinate. Mav214 (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm not willing to entertain an abusive/sarcastic request. SQL^{Query Me!} 17:05, 17 September 2023 (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.

Mav214 (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Mav214, I've had to revert back to your previous unblock request because it was never properly reviewed. Feel free to alter the unblock request however you like as long as you do it before it's reviewed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Did my sorry not do the trick? Mav214 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you my Wikipedia parole officer? I’m trying to understand the proper channels and processes to follow. Mav214 (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Steinsson traces the change in the content of English Wikipedia over time to suggest that the combination of ambiguous institutional rules and certain editors leaving the site helped Wikipedia transition from being a source that hosted pro-fringe discourse to one that gained credibility as an active fact-checker and anti-fringe. A close examination of the content of selected Wikipedia articles, their publicly available editing history, as well as the comments made by the editors, allows Steinsson to show that a change in the interpretation of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guideline affected the nature of content in its articles. As the interpretation favored by anti-fringe editors became popular, pro-fringe editors faced increasing challenges and began to leave Wikipedia. This shift in the balance between pro-fringe and anti-fringe editors, which was a result both of the way editorial disputes were resolved and the exit of pro-fringe editors, made Wikipedia gain credibility as a source that debunked myths and controversies and did not promote pseudoscience.[1]

The only salvation I can see for you would be to accept a complete topic ban from political and controversial topics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

PRAISE THE ALMIGHTY VALJEAN AND THEIR OMNISCIENT MIND.

Seriously though take a deep breath and become a little more accepting of differing ideas. I’ve done nothing but increase the accuracy of the pages in question and you’ve made a coordinated and concentrated effort in suppressing contributions you disagree with politically, ignoring the valid facts associated.

The honest truth is this is personal for you as a bigot. The world isn’t perfect but you can and should be better. Mav214 (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I also wanted to add, that you’re contradicting yourself by pushing a political topic ban and then saying I deserve to be banned due to violating the 3 revert rule. Then why would it matter if I can edit sports or other topics? I’m fine with you having a politically motivated agenda just please be honest with the community about that. This is not about the project’s credibility this is about control. Mav214 (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. Not worthy of a real response. Goodbye.

It's time for your access to this talk page to be blocked as you are using it abusively. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Point one finger you got 4 pointing back at yourself. Your abusive nature is painfully obvious and it’s honestly pathetic. Rather than push for me to be further silenced (bullying tactic) why don’t you engage in discourse? My guess is that you’re a small person who eliminates those with superior intellect rather than accepting being proven wrong. This is a good example of that here. Mav214 (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot, all praise the almighty Valjean. May their god complex shine mighty. Mav214 (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Continuing on this path will likely result in losing access to this page. You have access at the moment soley to make appeals.

Take some time to cool off, read the guide to appealing blocks, and give it another go later. SQL^{Query Me!} 19:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Can I have some reasoning why this individual is allowed to instigate, antagonize, and behave in an abusive manner? I would appreciate instructions to ban this individual from further abuse on my talk page. Mav214 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2023 (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).

Mav214 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm very sorry. What do I need to do? At this point, I would like editing access to defend myself from the abuses I am receiving from RGW warrior (Valjean). I know that editing political pages is a fools errand as the agenda of the site is enforced. I simply want to regain access or will settle on a block with a timer on it. Likewise, please unblock my page so I can edit my bio as that seems to be a point of contention that I would like to remove to settle. My intent is to build enough credibility with non-political sites that I can make edits that do not violate Wikipedia boundaries in the long term. That said I request lifting my block in order to pursue this. It's obvious Valjean will be monitoring me to continue their abuse whenever the opportunity presents itself, so I will not step out of line. Mav214 (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That no one wanted to touch this seems valid: again we have an unblock request in which another editor is being slandered. If there's a neutral unblock request I might look at it again. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2024 (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.

Ok Drmies (talk) what does that even mean? It can't be slander when it's true and the evidence is present all over this talk page. Can you please give me a real reason that my unblock request was declined? It's seeming that this is just a sham process and there's no real intention to unblock from the admins. I followed the steps, offered to refrain from political pages. And there was just an empty "no". I'm going to insist you give a real reason for declining. So please elaborate.Mav214 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Following up on if I can get an expiration on my block. It's been a month with no response. Unsure what more I can do, would like to simply know if I will remain indefinitely blocked. Thank you. Mav214 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing that you can do- admins are volunteers, doing what they can, when they can, and perhaps understandably few of them are willing to review unblock requests. As the northern winter sets in perhaps more will be available, but the only thing you can do is be patient. Adding additional requests has no effect(so I removed the formatting from your last comment). 331dot (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The only agenda of Wikipedia is to summarize independent reliable sources. It might help you if you agree to not edit about American politics- but that's up to you. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully ask you to please stop speaking in a condescending tone. This block review is between myself and the administrator whom will be reviewing it. If that is not you, then please excuse yourself. My edits were frankly truthful. I would accept a timed ban on American Politics and believe that is very reasonable in this scenario as the edit warring violation was a caveat to the 3 revert rule I was unaware of. To determine an individual is unfit for contributing on politics as frankly an alarming reflection of the agenda I referred to.

I reiterate my proposal. For the ban to be lifted for topics outside of American Politics, and a rational timeframe set for the expiration of the latter ban.

Ask yourself this, was this ban due to the clerical misstep outlined? Or is it due to the content of the revision? If the same misunderstanding of the rules occurred on the Akron Zips football page would I be handed an indefinite ban? I think you know that answer. Mav214 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Very well, I will honor your wishes, but my intention is not to be condescending, just to tell things to you straight as best I can. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Please, please, PLEASE read the guide to appealing blocks.

Your block is in place in order to protect the encyclopedia - that's what we do here, we're an encyclopedia. In order to convince a patrolling admin that the block is no longer needed to protect the encyclopedia you would need to convince them that something has changed (probably on your end) that will avoid repeating this block. I would recommend completely disengaging from Valjean (as I would also ask that Valjean please leave you alone at this point, if you're doing something that disruptive, there are literally millions of other editors that can address it) instead of vowing that you will use the restoration of your privileges to defend yourself.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about political pages. I stay far away as well. Too thick with time-wasting POV warriors from all sides. I have better things to do.

You will likely not be able to set, or negotiate the duration of your block, and/or any topic bans. You would be better off indicating that you would accept an indefinite topic ban, and understand that you can appeal it later once you prove that you can function positively in a collaborative environment.

I have already reviewed a request from you - and shouldn't review another. To be completely open and honest - based on this request I would likely decline (albeit weakly) per what I wrote above. I hope that you find some of what I wrote to be helpful, and I'm around if you want to bounce anything off of me, or have any questions. If you wish me to leave you alone as well, I will acquiesce without hesitation. SQL^{Query Me!} 23:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Do appreciate the more positive tone and actual instruction this time, much of the frustration on my end was the "nope try again" attitude I have been receiving from the other admins. The appeal on indefinite bans is good information that I had not known. I frankly don't know what else I can say other than I'm still learning the ropes of the editing details. As you know the rules for editing can be detailed and frankly very difficult to explore in detail. Errors like this happen and I hope the reviewing admin sees this. Again, I see contributions I can make in other spaces that I have outlined in above comments.

As you seem to be the only constructive contributor here, which I thank you for, may you educate me on the specific reason I have been blocked, what I need to do to prevent further violations, and move on from this? Mav214 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2023 (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).

Mav214 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Adding yet another unblock request. I respectfully ask that I be unblocked and do not wish to keep being instructed to beg more. I get it American politics are off limits. What now? I know this will be declined again so in that decline reason can the admin please just give concise instruction on what will unblock me? Mav214 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests are not a help forum. You are supposed to read our rules, take the time to understand them, then explain to us why you were blocked and how you'll avoid it in the future. Instead, you've made sarcastic, trollish unblock requests and fished for the words necessary to tell us what we want to hear. If you're unwilling to take a few hours to read through our policies and understand them, maybe Wikipedia just isn't for you. For example, nobody wants you to beg. The point is to read the policies, understand them, and explain them back to us. You seem to construe these necessary actions as belittling, as if doing so is "begging". I don't know why you feel this way, but once your attitude changes, please use WP:UTRS. The unblock queue is heavily backlogged right now, partly because people are continually making poor unblock requests that show they're unwilling to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and other linked pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2024 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.