Beautifulcalmdriving

s== Welcome! ==

Hello, Beautifulcalmdriving! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 10:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Discretionary sanctions alerts

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.

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

Doug Weller talk 10:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources

"Do not add content from unreliable secondary sources such as http://politicsthatwork.com/."

On what basis is that particular source 'unreliable'?

"Also, do not add bullet points to articles."

What rule states this?

"For example, if someone opposes abortion, you need to link to a reliable source (such as the New York Times) that says the person opposes abortion. If you cite http://politicsthatwork.com/ and list bullet points, there's a good chance that your edits will be reverted. If your edits cite actual reliable sources and are worded in the same way that the RS word things, the edits won't be reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)"

Again, on what basis is that particular source unreliable?

Again, be careful that the content you add is sourced to newspaper coverage. You cannot pick random things from voting records and source it to the votes themselves. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, votes are factual events that occurred. They still occurred regardless of if a journalist wrote about them. Are you attempting to argue that data can't be cited from .gov sources unless a journalist wrote about that data? I think that would be incorrect.

Yes, that is how it works. It's better that you learn this early. Otherwise your edits will be a huge waste of time. Content sourced exclusively to those voting records on .gov websites will get reverted. It needs to be sourced to newspaper coverage. There are numerous reasons for this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you please cite/quote those "numerous reasons"? Thanks

I am trying to help you. Do you want to add content to Wikipedia that will actually survive for more than a week? Follow my advice and stop edit-warring. Do not remove reliably sourced content, like you did in your last Joni Ernst edit. If you keep this up, your content will get reverted and you will be banned. Listen to my advice if you want to make meaningful edits to Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd kindly ask you to stop edit-warring, thanks. You haven't given any specific justifications for your claims about sources. I see no reason why you wouldn't be banned for your actions, as of now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcalmdriving (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think Snooganssnoogans is correct, but it's hard to read this because you have refactored the comments in a way that makes it difficult to understand. In the future, post new comments below old ones and add a signature clearly indicate which comments are yours. Talk pages are a record of the discussion, and any change to other people's comments should done for a specific reason.

Anyway, articles need to be primarily based on WP:SECONDARY sources, not routine primary ones such as voting records. Further, such sources should mostly be WP:INDY sources, meaning they are independent of the topic they discuss.

The place for you to gain consensus for the changes you want to make is the article's talk page: Talk:Joni Ernst. To avoid edit warring, specifically WP:3RR, the burden is on you to gain consensus before restoring your edits. This is not a threat, but it is a warning so that you are aware of Wikipedia's rules. Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I simply quoted the op's statements.

Could you cite/quote the rules for each of these statements. I'd like the official language rather than a paraphrase. Wiki's own language seems to directly support my usage, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." If either of you can find any language to contradict this I'd be interested, but it appears the op is simply incorrect.

Does the removal of my edits require no consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcalmdriving (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, do not refactor other editor's comments. Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Signatures. When you rearrange comments, you remove them from their surrounding context to insert your own comments. It might be perfectly clear to you, but this talk page should be clear to other people as well. Rearranging things is needlessly confusing, as it makes it impossible for another editor to tell who is saying what. It is also similar to interrupting. If you must quote someone else's comments, do so directly as a quote with quotation marks or similar, but add a signature to your own comments so that other people can figure out what's going on.

My view of primary sources, and it appears I'm not alone here, is is at odds with yours, and I am happy to explain why I think this is. There are other policies I could point to, but WP:CON is enough. The essay WP:BRD might be more useful for a practical understanding.

There is no end to the amount of primary sources which could be added, right? I'm sure you've noticed that here are a lot of potential sources which could be added, but we cannot possibly add them all. For any politician with a career history of any length, there are hundred or thousands of votes which might be significant, and sometimes, not voting at all is also significant. This is not even to mention the quantity of press releases and similar which exist. Instead of relying on editors to decide which are important and which are not, we need reliable sources to do this work for us, and we need those sources to provide at least a little bit of context. Otherwise, we risk cherry-picking perspectives based on the political inclinations of editors, instead of according to due weight. The use of independent sources is one of the major ways we maintain a neutral point of view. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"Again, do not refactor other editor's comments." Didn't refactor anything, only quoted.

"Rearranging things is needlessly confusing, as it makes it impossible for another editor to tell who is saying what. It is also similar to interrupting. If you must quote someone else's comments, do so directly as a quote with quotation marks or similar, but add a signature to your own comments so that other people can figure out what's going on." Agree to disagree, I suppose. I'm obviously not interrupting anything and it's common to quote others in a discussion. I already stated I quoted the others comments, so I guess you missed that, or we're in agreement.

":My view of primary sources, and it appears I'm not alone here, is is at odds with yours, and I am happy to explain why I think this is. There are other policies I could point to, but WP:CON is enough. The essay WP:BRD might be more useful for a practical understanding." Again, agree to disagree. It appears my usage clearly falls within the guidelines and will continue to operate as such. I suppose you can continue to follow your own interpretation in your own editing. Thanks for the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcalmdriving (talk • contribs) 23:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, add signatures to your talk page comments, per Wikipedia:Signatures. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) or by tapping or clicking on the four tildes at the bottom of your edit window.

As for refactoring, using indentation is not enough, especially not without a signature. It is not obvious to other people who is saying what, or when. Talk pages should be a record of the conversation, so this information needs to be apparent without editors having to dig through edit histories. You may think this is pedantic, and you're not wrong, but Wikipedia's software is old and idiosyncratic. Things you may expect from other websites do not necessarily apply here.

As for content and sources, you are free to disagree, but that doesn't change that the burden is on you to gain consensus for changes you wish to make. If you do not understand why these changes are contested, you will find it much more difficult to gain consensus. If you do understand the reasons, and just ignore them, you're not giving us much reason to work with you. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, I didn't refactor anything, I quoted. You are using the term refactor,not me. I think it's clear who is saying what, but it's fine if you disagree. To your second point, likewise, I look forward to you and others trying to gain consensus on each of your edits and retractions, with your particular understandings of usage of primary documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcalmdriving (talk • contribs) 00:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of leeway (and apathy) for how users post to their own talk pages, but follow WP:TPG on article talk pages. Add signatures to your comments. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Ignoring this will be seen as disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to do what you're referring to, but being that you're no longer addressing the substance of the discussion and only speaking about signatures, I think our convo has come to a conclusion, so I think we're good. Nice talking to you.

Look, all you need to do when editing is to cite news reports. This may strange to you, but that's how things work. You can either adapt to that or your hard work will be for nothing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your commentary. As I've previously stated, I think you're incorrect, as the language wiki provides about primary sources clearly allows for stating them as facts within wiki pages. You can continue giving the same advice, but it doesn't make it any more correct. Good luck editing.

May 2020

(The source in question: Politics That Work's content has been cited by the New York Times, Salon, Marketwatch and Truth Out and has been published on the Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, PoliticusUSA, Angry Bear and others.)~~~~

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Tim Scott, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Politicsthatwork is not a reliable source. Please stop sourcing information about politicians from that site. WMSR (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please provide the exact justification for why it's not a reliable source, thanks. Just re-restating it doesn't clarify anything further. I could just write, "it is a reliable source" with no justification but that would be just as useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcalmdriving (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beautifulcalmdriving: Here is a link to the relevant guideline. The onus is on you to prove that a source is reliable, not the other way around. Also, please indent and sign your posts. --WMSR (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Others made claims about the source being unreliable, not me, so the onus seems to be on them to prove themselves. Again, could you please quote the specific language (not link to the overall post about reliable sources) that proves that this website is unusable? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcalmdriving (talk • contribs) 11:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not how this works. Multiple editors have asked you to stop. You are now engaged in edit warring in violation of WP:BRD. You will end up at a noticeboard if this continues. --WMSR (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears to me you are engaged in edit warring in violation of WP:BRD. You will end up at a noticeboard if this continues. Please stop. PS: I'll just repost this here so you and others can easily use it to inform your opinions: "Politics That Work's content has been cited by the New York Times, Salon, Marketwatch and Truth Out and has been published on the Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, PoliticusUSA, Angry Bear and others." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcalmdriving (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That's just not what edit warring is. You were reverted and restored your contribution without a discussion. What you are doing now is casting aspersions at me. The website you continue to cite is self-published and we have no way to ensure verifiability. I implore you to listen to what I, and other editors, am telling you. If a reliable source reports the same information that you are adding, you are welcome to add that information with a citation, but the wording you are using is clearly partisan, and the source is not reliable. Whenever you contribute to an article, the onus is on you to prove that the source you are citing is reliable. Per WP:BURDEN, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You have thus far made no attempt to do that (the fact that the website itself claims that it was cited by the Times proves nothing). Please make an effort to collaborate, and please self-revert your re-additions of content from Politicsthatwork. --WMSR (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not casting any aspersions, I'm simply recounting what occurred. You reverted my edit without a discussion. No third party and no consensus confirmed your opinion that the source was not reliable. It's just your opinion vs mine at this point, and I think a source cited by the New York Times is likely credible. The "wording" is literally exact quoted from the source page. Yes, I literally have "attempted to prove" the source is credible, countless times, by quoting you the many publications that have cited the source's work. If you don't those citations indicate credibility, that's on you, but I'd obviously disagree, and I believe I will get consensus on my determination, and you won't. Good luck in your future editing.

If multiple editors are disputing the reliability of the source, take it to to the reliable sources noticeboard to have the source vetted.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I think that it is the use of the source that's the problem, eg [1]. Beautifulcalmdriving, I refer you to the sanctions alert above. If you get reverted again, I want you to get consensus on the article page. Being WP:VERIFIABLE and a reliable source is necessary for inclusion in an article, but it isn't sufficient. If these complaints continue, the only solution may be a topic ban. I'd really like to avoid that and I'm sure you are trying to be a constructive editor, but you aren't listening - and your inability to follow our practices such as indenting and signing posts isn't helping at all as it's irritating. How ironic that I forgot to sign. I'll trout myself. And my ping to User:Ponyo failed Doug Weller talk 19:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd completely disagree, unfortunately I've been 'listening' endlessly; hope you and others will do the same. The pestering over signatures is exhausting, but I think it's fair to say they're the least of our worries in this instance, and I've stated multiple times I don't know how to add it. Also whoever wrote the message above did not signature their comment, so I'm sure you'll be chastising them endlessly for that now right ;)? I'd love for everyone to focus on the substance of the discussion at hand rather than technicalities. I'm sure you'll be considering "topic bans" as you put it for these other users who are reverting content but are incorrect about their claims regarding primary and reliable sources, correct? Quantity of complains does not equal quality, as I'm sure you know, and it's ridiculous to endlessly threaten one user because others cannot prove their claims about sources. Your repeated threats aren't helping at all, in fact, they're quite toxic and irritating, to use your word. Please focus your energies on the users having trouble understanding sources, thanks.

To sign, put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your talk page posts.(I have suppressed this function for my post so you can see what to do). There is also a signature button on the screen located above the area where you type your post(it looks like a scribble). When the cursor is at the end of your post, clicking this button will also place the four tildes. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello, I'm Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. 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 Ben Shapiro seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a literal quote. Please replace it. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Beautifulcalmdriving, If you actually read the article, you would know that the quote is already included under "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section. And, do not describe BLPs as having "racist views" or "personal racism." Personal views do not belong in Wikipedia. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what a BLP is, and indeed that literally is 'personal racism'. How else would you describe it? Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Beautifulcalmdriving, A WP:BLP is a living person (like Shapiro). We have very strict guidelines on how to write about living people. Please read them. And please revert yourself. I already told you that the quote is already included in the article: "Vox describes Shapiro as a polarizing figure, in part due to tweets such as "Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage" (2010)". We don't need duplicate quotes. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That's wonderful, I hope those very strict guidelines include citing objective racism. And the comments (two quotes) are completely relevant to the race section, so agree to disagree. Have a nice day. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If you keep this up, you are sure to get blocked. Have a great day! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Lol. I'd say harassing people making relevant edits is going to get you blocked, if there is any justice on this platform. Have a nice day! Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

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-1992 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.

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

No idea what this means, but I hope this isn't you power-tripping. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Luckily, I have followed wiki's guidelines. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

I have again reverted your edit to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I hope my edit summary this time is detailed enough. If you required specifics of each policy not followed, I will provide those. Please do not edit war until you have a chance to read the policies. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not edit war my edits; you have not shown any of the text to be violating any policies. And yes, if you allege that any texts does, please cite your specific concern BEFORE edit warring/altering any of my text. I will now revert your edit until you have proven your policy concerns. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Your recent editing history at Kyrsten Sinema shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

How do I strike Muboshgu for edit-warring? Thanks Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't, period. That's because you are the one edit-warring. You should follow our method for avoiding edit wars. It's described at WP:BRD. One, and only one, BOLD edit is allowed to you if another editor then REVERTS that bold edit. No exceptions. It's not BRBRBRD. After their revert, you must start a DISCUSSION on the talk page and discuss until you reach a consensus decision about what to do with that content. Maybe, through a collaborative process, it can be improved and then added to the article. Maybe not. Any deviation is edit-warring and can quickly lead to you getting blocked.

You have been warned by Muboshgu, an excellent and highly-respected administrator whose advice you should follow. After seeing what you have been doing and saying, I can assure you that no one here will shed a tear if you get blocked, but I hope you take our advice and avoid that fate. -- Valjean (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not the one edit-warring, Muboshgu clearly is, as they have repeatedly, immediately, and unilaterally deleted my edits WITHOUT asking for consensus and with NO VALID REASON, as previously stated numerous times, including such hilariously unfounded, idiotic reasons such as "you can't add a header", which is false, and obviously if you've read any of the conversations Muboshgu indeed never quoted the policy to me the SPECIFIC wiki policy text that proves they could do this (NOT GENERAL PAGES, SPECIFIC TEXT). And again, as previously stated, there was no dispute about the CONTENT of the edit, so there was no need for discussion/dispute, the user just unilaterally deleted it WITH NO CONSENSUS AND NO VALID REASON, and they repeated this action again today. Muboshgu has repeatedly proven to be an awful, power-tripping user over and over again, and they're undoubtedly still running rampant unilaterally ruining pages all across this website, to the detriment of everyone. I hope Muboshgu, and anyone who defends their actions gets blocked, banned, deleted, and whatever other disciplinary actions are available as soon as possible for the sake of the health of this website. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are some specific excerpts from policies and guidelines:

• Be Bold guideline: After the reversion of your bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as to not start an edit war; see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for more.
• Consensus policy: When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns.
• Edit warring policy: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war.

• Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle.
• Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required.

Hopefully you find these helpful. Politanvm ^talk 04:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Lol I'm well aware, it's Muboshgu who needs to read these and find us the line that says you cannot add a header. I suppose we'll both be eagerly waiting! Though with any lucky Muboshgu will be banned. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Reposting from bottom: Also I'll just mention for absolute clarity, "corruption allegations" are objectively not a "bold edit", or any special type of edit in this case, as I previously mentioned on the subject page this is commonly reported this way in the news; here are three separate credible news sources describing the wiki topic as "corrupt": https://www.nj.com/opinion/2021/10/sinema-verite-big-money-corrupts-a-senator-tanks-an-agenda-editorial.html, https://www.azmirror.com/blog/billboard-slams-sinema-as-corrupt-on-net-neutrality/, https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/09/27/cartoonish-level-corrupt-dems-fight-bold-agenda-sinema-fundraise-its-corporate. This is not a debatable or controversial statement, it is simply a fact that credible sources are accusing her of corruption and calling her corrupt, and simply chronicling that fact on the page is not "bold", or any special type of edit. It would be detrimental to Wikipedia if editors were allowed to mark things as some sort of "special edits" (perhaps in an effort to give themselves more leverage to remove quality, accurate content) in a malicious way when they are clearly, objectively wrong. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Quoting myself from elsewhere: Also I'll just mention for absolute clarity, "corruption allegations" are objectively not a "bold edit", or any special type of edit in this case, as I previously mentioned on the subject page this is commonly reported this way in the news; here are three separate credible news sources describing the wiki topic as "corrupt": https://www.nj.com/opinion/2021/10/sinema-verite-big-money-corrupts-a-senator-tanks-an-agenda-editorial.html, https://www.azmirror.com/blog/billboard-slams-sinema-as-corrupt-on-net-neutrality/, https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/09/27/cartoonish-level-corrupt-dems-fight-bold-agenda-sinema-fundraise-its-corporate. This is not a debatable or controversial statement, it is simply a fact that credible sources are accusing her of corruption and calling her corrupt, and simply chronicling that fact on the page is not "bold", or any special type of edit. It would be detrimental to Wikipedia if editors were allowed to mark things as some sort of "special edits" in a malicious way when they are clearly, objectively wrong. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• I understand things feel a bit tense, so I'm hoping I can provide some explanation and hopefully resolve this. While a talk page discussion is ongoing, generally the stable version is preferred. In this case, three folks clearly expressed support for the version with less quotes, and thus that version is the one that is shown for the moment. I don't really see folks agreeing to the longer version without some good cause. Generally, Wikipedia prefers to not use lots of quotes. Also, Wikipedia tries not to make individual events seem bigger than they are, or bias recent events towards greater coverage. As a veteran editor, it is my opinion that a short, sweet, factual sentence is the best thing to add here. If at some point the quotes become the subject of greater coverage, then sure we could include them. But they appear to simply be color commentary picked out by the NYTimes. The Times is certainly a very reliable source, but we don't need to reprint their whole article, just get the factual gist across. The version as is appears to have WP:CONSENSUS. That doesn't mean 100% of editors must agree, but instead it usually means a plurality. Here, three editors agree based on policy reasons, to your one. That looks like consensus to me.

I of course could be wrong, or misunderstanding the reason you would like the extra quotes added. Could you clarify exactly why you think we should have the extra quoted material? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

If you read the article's talk page, you can see the reasons I gave for including more content, not just simply quotes, which no one has responded to, therefore we HAVE NOT reached consensus as no one has responded to my statement. The content I included also only moves the original sentence from one sentence to two sentences, a very modest change, by any objective measure (and anyone paying attention should know, I think there is a quality argument for more to be included than two sentences). Unfortunately yes Muboshgu's repeated corrupt, power-tripping actions of auto-deleting quality information immediately, and unilaterally, without any consensus, are indeed horrific and really illustrating how the quality of Wikipedia is being actively compromised and destroyed by awful users. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Worth noting also in case anyone is unaware that Muboshgu's original stated reason for unilaterally removing my initial edit (clearly visible on the history of Sinema page) was that a HEADER was added; it was NOT a dispute over the content of the edit. So by their own logic, they should be fine and immediately stop power-tripping if OBJECTIVELY TOPICAL content is simply added to an existing section, which is sadly what's happening now, but they are obviously still continuing to power-trip. They've been continuing to IMMEDIATELY revert anything I do, except now they aren't even bothering to make up a reason. Hilarious, horrific, and the fact that it seems only administrators (hope for all of us there is some qualification for this besides just having an old account and making a ton of horrific and abusive reverts) can/will tag them for edit-warring or ban them for their disgraceful abuse indicates just how grim this website's future is. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

• As explained in your block notice, you have continued to edit war at Kyrsten Sinema after being warned by multiple editors. Additionally, you have bludgeoned the article talk page and several user talk pages with demands for explanations that have been made multiple times by multiple editors. To achieve unblock you will need to convince a reviewing administrator that you can participate here constructively without wasting the time of your fellow volunteers. Tiderolls 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring seems to be defined as reverting 3x, so it seems that nothing that has occurred anywhere would be defined as "edit-warring", and if you're going to ban a user for reverting less than the official policy, then you also need to promptly ban Muboshgu for doing the same, as they have reverted countless more edits than I have. Have you done so? I'll be looking out for that action. If not, this action should be promptly reversed, and I obviously think it is in bad taste regardless over a good faith dispute about wiki policy. Indeed I have been forced to sadly enter discussions as no one has provided quality support or defense for Muboshgu's actions. I'm still awaiting that, and I'm also looking forward to others being constructive, and not power-tripping or banning users who have a good-faith disagreement over wiki policy like seems to be done here. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

3RR does not define edit warring. See WP:Edit warring...last sentence, second paragraph. Tiderolls 13:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"3RR" Is the specific statement given when someone tags you for edit-warring as I'm sure you know, so it's fair to say that it plays a predominant, if not central role in the reasoning (otherwise it should not be included in the edit-warring tag). Regardless, there is no reason to particularly interpret my edits/reversions as being in bad faith; I've clearly made detailed and extensive arguments to the contrary, and the user repeatedly reverting my posts has no consensus and completely invalid reasons for doing so including such non-wiki-policy-supported-reasoning such as "you cannot add a header". I at the very least expect the same respect to be given to my edits as any other user who is unilaterally deleting them without consensus and without reasoning supported by wiki policy, or any reasoning at all. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Good faith is not an exception to the edit warring policy. In fact, one's edit could be correct and the editor still be edit warring. It would seem you are not reading the policies that are being suggested. This could be an issue in your difficulties. Tiderolls 14:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, if my actions are defined as "edit-warring", than countless others certainly qualify, most definitely those unilaterally reverting my edits on the page with no consensus or wiki-policy-supported reasoning. I'll be looking for those actions on the other users pages. Good faith absolutely applies as it dictates whether the user is trolling, or if there is an honest dispute over policy, which there indeed is here. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

OK...don't read the policies. It was just a suggestion meant to help you obtain unblock. Tiderolls 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I have already read the policies; I'm eagerly awaiting others to do so. If they had, we would not be in this discussion. Thanks for your input. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to be specific about the text, I'm just going note here that several other users in the discussion on the Sinema page (and perhaps also users who have commented on my talk page) fit these descriptions: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions", "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable", and "and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". This is why I was earnestly asking how to tag other users for edit-warring on their page; it's clear that others repeatedly reverted edits to get to their "preferred version", and the literal text of the edit-warring page supports the fact that they did wrong. The original and primary disagreement that started this dispute, however, was that the individual who first deleted my edit (that took a fair bit of effort to write), did so because allegedly "you cannot add a header", which I alleged was not supported by wiki-policy language. And from what I can tell from the language of the "edit warring" page as well as others, their revert of my work was simply not valid for the "header" reason, or otherwise. The addition to the page was NOT "where negative unsourced content", indeed, the source was NYT. So that was not a valid reason to revert. The addition could also NOT be credibly called a "bold edit"; corruption allegations" are objectively not a "bold edit" or any special type of edit in the case of Sinema, as I previously mentioned on the subject page this is commonly reported this way in the news; here are three separate credible news sources describing the wiki topic as "corrupt": https://www.nj.com/opinion/2021/10/sinema-verite-big-money-corrupts-a-senator-tanks-an-agenda-editorial.html, https://www.azmirror.com/blog/billboard-slams-sinema-as-corrupt-on-net-neutrality/, https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/09/27/cartoonish-level-corrupt-dems-fight-bold-agenda-sinema-fundraise-its-corporate. This is not a debatable or controversial statement, it is simply a fact that credible sources are accusing her of corruption and calling her corrupt, and simply chronicling that historical fact on the page is not "bold", or any special type of edit. It's just a normal basic edit. Nothing else supports the other users ability to perform their unilateral revert (let-alone trying to justify it by saying "you cannot add a header to a page"), so I'm still not finding that their action was supported by wiki policy, which was the origin of this dispute and the reason I was asking for help. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

reasons stated above and across all talk page discussions, good faith discussion about how wiki policy works, consensus, and abuse of power by harmful usersBeautifulcalmdriving (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please specifically discuss your edit warring and not the actions of others. Only you can control what you do. It's not up to others to gain a consensus against your edits, you must get one to permit them or otherwise show policies that support them. Some contrition would help, too. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2021 (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.

I'll just quote what I wrote above: "3RR" Is the specific statement given when someone tags you for edit-warring as I'm sure you know, so it's fair to say that it plays a predominant, if not central role in the reasoning (otherwise it should not be included in the edit-warring tag as it will obviously mislead users). Regardless, there is no reason to particularly interpret my edits/reversions as being in bad faith; I've clearly made detailed and extensive arguments to the contrary, and the user repeatedly reverting my posts has no consensus and completely invalid reasons for doing so including such non-wiki-policy-supported-reasoning such as "you cannot add a header". I at the very least expect the same respect to be given to my edits as any other user who is unilaterally deleting them without consensus and without reasoning supported by wiki policy, or any reasoning at all.

The recent edit that created this dispute is objectively topical, only turns the section into two sentences instead of one, and adds a couple quotes from the New York Times. It was then unilaterally deleted by another user with no discussion or consensus for doing so, despite objectively being on-topic and from a quality source, and now discussion of that user's reckless actions is resulting in people attempting to ban my account. If that is bannable this website is in quite a grim state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcalmdriving (talk • contribs)

• Also worth noting I and undoubtedly countless other users have made many edits on wiki which were not auto-unilaterally-reverted based on a false claim or any claim, so the policy some have alleged of "you have to gain consensus for each and every edit you make" is either not accurate or not in effect on this website. If it was each and every change anyone made to any page would be insta-reverted and turned into a dispute on the talk page, which they aren't. So clearly there is some standard for quality that users are operating on, and that standard should also be applied here, and users who are abusing their (administrator) power to delete high-quality additions unilaterally or trying tag for edit-warring or ban others based on false pretenses should be disciplined accordingly. The same user who started auto-unilaterally-deleting my edits apparently did not feel the need to start a days-long dispute on any of my other quality edits on the same page, which suggests they are likely being malicious and not acting in good faith. By implicitly acknowledging that my other edits were quality by not insta-reverting them, they've acknowledged that I do indeed do quality edits to wiki pages and I don't know why they are choosing to be so combative on this particular edit. Very odd, and their escalation to tagging my page with "edit-warring" while being totally fine with my other edits sadly shows they are likely not acting in good faith, or being reasonable or faithfully following wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcalmdriving (talk • contribs)

It seems like you’re not interested in being unblocked, because you’re ignoring every single other editor’s advice, which itself goes against the Disruptive editing behavioral guideline (See WP:ICANTHEARYOU). You are blocked for your disruptive behavior, not for the content of your edits. The issue is very simple. As you’ve read at WP:BRD, one of the most common ways to resolve a content dispute is to discuss the edit once it is reverted. In this case:

• Good: You made a Bold edit at Kyrsten Sinema
• Good: Muboshgu Reverted the edit with the rationale WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, get consensus on the talk page for "corruption allegations"
• This is where your disruptive editing began. Instead of Discussing on the Talk page, you continued reverting. This is disruptive behavior even if your version is “correct”.
• Then you dug a deeper hole by focusing on Muboshgu instead of discussing your edits. And when other editors tried to clarify, you accuse them of taking sides as well.

It is unlikely you will be unblocked unless you demonstrate you understand the above. If not, you may end up blocked from editing your own talk page. Politanvm ^talk 15:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not ignoring anyone, I am just not in agreement with other editors arguments at this point. I am indeed also an editor, so my perspective and interpretation also matters. This entire dispute was created because as previously stated, another user alleged that I was not allowed to "add a header", which of course I disagreed with and I don't believe is supported anywhere in wiki policy, so no, none of this was originally about the actual content. As for later edits where you might allege consensus had not and still had not been reached, no one had responded to my comment on the talk page, which would be important for reaching consensus. If they had, it might have changed things. And that dispute (over whether to add a subheader) is and was separate from the latest edit which is totally separate, in which I accepted that I wouldn't add a header and instead attempted to add a sentence to the agreed section, which was immediately auto-reverted again by random users with no quality justification. Obviously I don't want to have to focus on Muboshgu or their actions, and I'm sure they'd rather not focus on me which they have been doing endlessly, but when I don't believe they are following wiki policy it becomes necessary to discuss and I'm sure they would claim the same. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• • • I'll just quickly also add that it's obvious to all that only a couple edits in my entire history of editing are actually in any kind of dispute or remote controversy. My editing record in totality is extremely strong; the overwhelming majority of my edits are deemed to be high enough quality to keep. If this website is going to remain high quality, this should factor into exceptionally rare disputes like this one.

This is not a forever block. It's only a block until you can explain what mistake you made. You were in the wrong here. Five different people told you that, at least. But you seem unwilling to accept that. It doesn't matter what other people did. Acknowledge your missteps, state how you'll change your behavior going forward, and you can get back to editing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think many who are commenting here are addressing the fundamental issue at hand, which is causing confusion. If it is the case that other editors are alleging (sadly they just seem to be assuming Muboshgu is correct in this instance regardless of the facts) that users like Muboshgu can in fact simply unilaterally delete people's edit for reasons such as "adding a header" (Muboshgu's words)(no one has yet proven that this is in fact a valid policy-supported reason to delete someone's work), and then when I try to revert this non-policy invalid action I am the one "in the wrong" and I get cited for edit-warring, then I do think it's safe to say wikipedia policy is sadly pretty dysfunctional. I hope for all of us editors that we can agree there are in fact instances that users' reverts of other's edits can be done for wrongful or invalid reasons. Regardless, as many seem to think that Muboshgu's actions were not wrongful, in the future I'll be happy to strongly dispute these, in my opinion, non-policy actions on the talk page rather than through the revert button, if that becomes necessary, as it certainly was here. Again, if a user like Muboshgu can unilaterally edit/delete someone else's work without consensus (Muboshgu did not consult the talk page before immediately deleting my work two separate times for what are, in my opinion, non-policy-supported reasons) while I, as the contributor, can't do the equal action, that seems very dysfunctional, hypocritical, nonsensical, and damaging to the health and quality of this website, but I suppose if other editors are going to good-faith argue that those actions are indeed supported by wiki policy then we as editors sadly have to work around these types of actions. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say that Muboshgu didn't discuss the matter. The talk page had a discussion, started by Schazjmd, joined by me and Muboshgu, who worked out a different version that we all agreed upon. While your original version was reverted in part for the reason that the title of the header (including "Corruption") was not appropriate, it was also apparent that other concerns were at play. The revert of the header was absolutely within policy: you, without a reliable source to back it up, claimed that a living person is corrupt. That goes against WP:BLP. Muboshgu had every right to undo an edit that does not conform to BLP. Then, for subsequent reverts, he had every right to enforce the consensus that was determined on the talk page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu started posting about the matter on the talk only AFTER taking unilitaral action to delete my work with no policy reason."You cannot add a header" is not a valid reason. And no, the original dispute over the header did not mention anything about the content of the header, as has been repeatedly stated, only that "you cannot add a header", which is invalid reasoning. If indeed Muboshgu meant that they had an issue with the content of the header and didn't specify, that is their own fault, and they should likely apologize for creating this whole awful situation. The semantics around the word "corruption" are irrelevant because Muboshgu didn't specify that their issue was with the content of the header, but even if we entertain that false notion, NYT is an extremely reliable source and what is alleged by the veterans that she did could easily be described as corruption by any objective measure: '"We shouldn’t have to buy representation from you, and your failure to stand by your people and see their urgent needs is alarming,”'. This literal conversation that we're having about semantics right now serves as evidence for why it's important to include many direct quotes as apparently people don't even read, including Muboshgu, and perhaps will convince a few people hastily jumping into this conversation that Muboshgu's actions were not only not justified on policy grounds, but they also failed to even read the material they so happy to immediately, unilaterally delete. I even purposefully tried to be neutral in perspective in the title by titling it "Corruption ALLEGATIONS". Also if Muboshgu or anyone else didn't like the CONTENT of the header, they could have edited the words within the header, not deleted all of my work. That would have been a much more appropriate and, perhaps, reasonable action to take that might not have created this horrible, boring dispute. Like I previously mentioned, no one responded when I attempted to reach consensus on adding more quotes, and I proceeded to add a couple quotes to the agreed upon section under "tenure". If people had promptly responded to my attempt to reach consensus on those quotes, we might not be having this discussion, but they didn't. I'm extremely tired of litigating this dispute, and again I think it's obvious that anyone who is fair and reasonable can agree that the overwhelming majority of my work is quality, so I think that should be the deciding factor here, and I'll await action on the ban. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Also I'll just mention for absolute clarity, "corruption allegations" are objectively not a "bold edit", or any special type of edit in this case, as I previously mentioned on the subject page this is commonly reported this way in the news; here are three separate credible news sources describing the wiki topic as "corrupt": https://www.nj.com/opinion/2021/10/sinema-verite-big-money-corrupts-a-senator-tanks-an-agenda-editorial.html, https://www.azmirror.com/blog/billboard-slams-sinema-as-corrupt-on-net-neutrality/, https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/09/27/cartoonish-level-corrupt-dems-fight-bold-agenda-sinema-fundraise-its-corporate. This is not a debatable or controversial statement, it is simply a fact that credible sources are accusing her of corruption and calling her corrupt, and simply chronicling that fact on the page is not "bold", or any special type of edit. It would be detrimental to Wikipedia if editors were allowed to mark things as some sort of "special edits" in a malicious way when they are clearly, objectively wrong. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't know how to tell if the current block is temporary or permanent, and I've never been blocked before so I'm guessing it's temporary, but in the meantime I still want to get clarification. Reasons for unblocking include I now know, according to other administrators who have written here, a person reverting someone's else's addition/work is always considered correct and cannot be reverted for any reason, even if you think their reason for reversion is not supported by wiki policy, or, as the administrator above put it, "In fact, one's edit could be correct and the editor still be edit warring", and that it's necessary to discuss disagreements over content inclusion on the talk page rather than through the "edit/history" page(not sure if this is correct name) and revert process. I also think it's fair to say my overall editing history is quite strong, and one dispute out of hundreds of successful, undisputed edits makes it clear that I am acting in good faith and trying to add valuable and relevant information to the website.

• • • PS: I might also add, I don't know how much control administrators have over how wikipedia works, but if there is indeed no legitimate or policy-supported reason to ever revert an edit as administrators above have described, it might be helpful to new and/or less frequent users to just remove this function, as it seems to have no functional purpose or utility, and only leads to confusion and disfunction. Just a thought...Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Hi Beautifulcalmdriving, There are two issues strong enough to prevent an unblock from happening at this time:

• Your disregard of WP:ONUS, a central part of the verifiability policy ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.")
• Your continued attempts to justify edit warring by the content of your edits without providing a specific exception (WP:3RRNO) that justifies doing so.

As "refusing to get the point" (WP:IDHT) is already the reason that led to the block, and as it's unlikely to genuinely change during the next two weeks, your access to this talk page will be revoked for two weeks. Afterwards, you are welcome to request an unblock again, but should not do so if you disagree with Wikipedia's central policies and do not credibly intend to adhere to them in the future.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2021 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Reason for unblock would be I intend to follow all of wiki's policies, including the specific ones referenced by wiki administrators on this page such as WP:ONUS, WP:3RRNO, WP:BRD, WP:BOLD, etc.. I now have a better understanding of these policies (never dispute an edit through the revert button, always get consensus on talk page, onus is on the person adding content to get consensus), especially WP:BOLD and WP:BRD "Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted." and "After the reversion of your bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as to not start an edit war; see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for more". Also have more knowledge about what is appropriate to include in an article from WP:NIF. I plan to follow the advice from WP:AVOIDEDITWAR: "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute", and "Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary." Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Decline as stale; you may make a fresh request. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2022 (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.

I see a lot of snark and sarcasm directed towards people who've given you advice above - this makes me hesitate about whether it would be wise to unblock your account. Onthe other hand, you seem to have read up on how to go about editing productively, and everybody deserves a second chance, so let me ask you a couple of questions:

First, do you now understand that it was your own actions that led to this situation - not Muboshgu's, or anybody else's?

It seems to me that you have been getting into strife at articles about US politics. That's a controversial topic area, and it might be better for you to learn more about editing in calmer waters. Second, would you be willing to accept a topic band from the subject, as an unblock condition? You could appeal for it to be lifted after six months once you've shown that you can contribute in a collegiate manner. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 14:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this unblock appeal is still active, but if so: Beautifulcalmdriving do you have any comment on the suggestion of an unblock with a topic ban from US politics articles? If not this appeal is likely to be declined. Also @Tide rolls: your views welcome on this elderly unblock appeal, as the blocking admin. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely no sarcasm or snark intended in the comment. As a result of this situation, I took the time to read over the policy pages referenced by administrators and I think I now know enough to be able to edit successfully without causing issues.

"First, do you now understand that it was your own actions that led to this situation - not Muboshgu's, or anybody else's?" Yes. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• • • On the topic ban question, I don’t think it will be necessary as I won’t be engaging in edit wars and I will be seeking consensus on the talk page for any/all topics (my trouble I feel was primarily related to wiki systems/policies such as the revert rule, onus, consensus, discussion for consensus on talk page not edit page, bold/revert/discuss, rather than a particular subject matter). I think following these rules will allow me to contribute productively without issue. As has been previously mentioned, the vast, overwhelming majority of my contributions to wiki have been regarded by other editors as unproblematic, many of which on the topic area, and this is my first and only block, so I haven't yet been able to show that I can contribute without issue again. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Apologies to Beautifulcalmdriving and those admins and editors that are in discussion here. I did not intend to leave the editor twisting in the wind regarding unblock but had things IRL which required my attention. First, I am always in favor of second chances. That said I would like to see any reviewing admin satisfy themselves as to the editor's commitment to addressing their IDHT problems. I have no singular objection to unblock. Tiderolls 13:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tide rolls. Am out of time to continue this appeal so will had it over to anyone else that wishes to review. FWIW I would unblock with an appealable topic ban from US politics, but not otherwise. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)