Abbot Luigi

April 2018

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Breitbart News. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. - MrX 🖋 16:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

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:

Thanks. I actually assumed good intentions of the editors when I started. The evidence after the exchanges has forced me to conclude differently. Thanks for your time. Abbot Luigi (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

- MrX 🖋 16:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Breitbart News. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. - MrX 🖋 16:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, they were all comments on the biased content of the article and the lock that prevents consensus. Please give me a specific quote that is against policy. Thanks.

"Note the political bias of Stephan Schulz, here, in regard to the article and the subject." - MrX 🖋 11:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, this doesn't mean it's OK to spam the talk page with comments like this: [1], so please stop doing that or you may be blocked for disruption. Talk pages are for discussing specific improvements to articles, with sources. If you continue to use them to complain, insult, and harangue, you will almost certainly be blocked from editing.- MrX 🖋 20:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, your admonition actually seems like a threat to silence my objections to the article. 'Spamming'? Seriously? I have done nothing except answer your posts to me. Abbot Luigi (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a correct observation, nothing more. Why is it considered an attack? Abbot Luigi (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Abbot Luigi, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Abbot Luigi! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 18:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Breitbart News. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Speaking as an administrator, you will be blocked from editing if you persist in attacking other editors, as you did for example here and here. Bishonen | talk 22:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen, says in your profile you were blocked three times? I didn't see, in the examples you cited, where I was personally attacking other people. You could quote it specifically for me? Thanks.

Yes indeed, it does say on my userpage that I've been blocked three times; I put it there, with a link to my block log in case somebody wants to see the details. Not sure why you end your statement about it with a question mark — what's the question? The personal parts of your comments were the ones that attacked and assumed bad faith of people here, instead of sticking to discussing the article: "due to the political bias of the gatekeepers locking the article" and "a very small politically biased set of authors who have decided to prevent consensus on this article." Please don't do that.

How should we address, then, the seriously biased article that in no way describes the subject? It's a cherry pick of sources and statements designed to make a political statement and a prejudicial view of the subject matter. We come to wikipedia for facts, not irrational judgement on this facts. Abbot Luigi (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

(Thanks for indenting your reply, indenting is good, but please indent with just one colon the first time, then the next person uses two colons, etc. I've fixed it for you. Also please sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~, which will automatically turn into a signature and timestamp when you publish.) Bishonen | talk 10:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC).

• And please never post in the middle of other people's comments. How do you expect readers to be able to tell who said what, when you unmoor part of my text from my signature, and sign it yourself? Always post below all of the other person's post. If you want to comment on a specific part of it, feel free to quote that part in your reply. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC).

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned for three months from editing any page (including article and user talk pages) related to Breitbart News, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing and making personal attacks on Talk:Breitbart News.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for disruptive editing [2], you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. 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} 04:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

---

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."

Another personal attack like the one you did this morning will result in another block

which might be indefinite. Doug Weller talk 06:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)