Chartreuse&Puce

Hello Chartreuse&Puce! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! User:UW Dawgs (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments 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 • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

2017 UCF

Note, the article treatment is identical to other single-selector articles such as 2010 TCU Horned Frogs football team. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Alert

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 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.

- MrX 🖋 19:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Talk:Kamala Harris. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear talk Fox News is a reliable source,and reported the affair. Willie Brown admitted to the affair.

It's not a mystery that she had an affair with Willie Brown. Putting in garbage like "she slept her way to the top" -- even on talk pages -- is an egregious violation of our WP:BLP policies, and should not be repeated. The article mentions they had a relationship, and that's all that can be said. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. The specific phrase you are using, "slept her way to the top", is the BLP violation I am referring to. They were in a relationship while he was already separated from his wife. She was qualified for the positions he appointed her to. Do not insinuate more than the sources say. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, you did it again. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear --jpgordon and Muboshgu - I get that "slept her way to the top" should not be in the article. No kidding. But her affair with Willie Brown, who was mayor of San Francisco at the time, should be more prominently mentioned. Willie Brown admitted to the affair. He appointed Harris, who he was having sex with, to two high-paying commission posts, and jump-started her political career, while the two were having sex. It was reported by a Wikipedia reliable source. These facts certainly merits mention. Otherwise, you are just stating that she had a relationship with Brown, but are leaving out the important details of how he started the political career of his lover. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

And why a block? I kept getting error message after error message that my edit request was some sort of conflict, and to try again. Which I did. Repeatedly. Once I saw that the edit request had been responded to, I stopped. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Because you're violating WP:BLP policy with the insinuations that you're making with that phrase. Don't even use it on talk pages, like this one. The article mentions their relationship and that he appointed her already. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration request regarding Immigration policy of Donald Trump edits

You are the subject of a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Chartreuse&Puce. You are welcome to participate in that discussion. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 22:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Responding to a couple of your questions there: Guerillero's log entry here says that the topic ban from post-1932 American politics editing is indefinite, and they provided information about appealing the decision in the last paragraph of the notice below. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 23:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from post-1932 American Politics

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing

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. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban here, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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

Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:03, 20 August 2020 (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."

Dear Guerillero - It was my understanding that my topic ban was about post-1932 U.S. politics. The article I edited was about immigration globally - not a U.S. political article. Further, the language I inserted was not political in nature but rather was about economics. I do not understand your position that I violated the ban. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Guerillero

I see that my 48-hour block was due to an editor named Snooganssnoogans. This editor's statements about my edit of the immigration article are a gross mischaracterization of the language I inserted - which was about economics, not politics. Snooganssnoogans' statement demonstrates that this particular editor has a biased agenda he promotes on Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, look at the editor's User page - it is filled with statements that set out his extreme liberal agenda. This editor clearly does not believe that Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Further, Snooganssnoogans seems to enjoy being extremely confrontational and has filled his Talk page with comments by people who have taken issue with his edits. This editor is also clearly not interested in working with other editors who disagree with his point of view. Some editors and administrators stated that I should be topic banned or blocked as I seem to have an agenda. If that is a reason to be blocked, why has nothing been done to Snooganssnoogans for a clear, biased agenda and confrontational attitude and pointed attacks on other editors and their contributions? Don't take my word for it - look at Snooganssnoogans' Talk page, edits (this editors makes a LOT of edits, mostly on political articles and mostly biased.). I don't know who this person is, but I can't believe Wikipedia not only allows but apparently condones behavior like this, and has for years, while I was blocked and banned for far, far less. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

DearSnooganssnoogans -

Why did you complain about my edit to the Immigration article to an Admin? Also, why did you mischaracterize my edit as political and a violation of my topic ban? The article I edited is not a post-1932 US politics article. My edit was about economics, not politics. In other words, I didn't violate a topic ban. I believe it was your mischaracterization of my edit, not my edit itself, that caused Guerillero to conclude that I violated the topic ban. Further, from looking at your User and Talk pages and edits you have made, and comments you have made when reverting edits, it seems like you delight in having a confrontational attitude toward other editors whose points of view you disagree with, and you wear your biased agenda proudly. I have no idea why I was topic banned and blocked, when you have been allowed to edit Wikipedia profusely for years with a clearly biased agenda and a confrontational attitude, but this is ridiculous. You make more problematic edits in a day that I have made in total. What exactly is going on here? Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:BROTHER. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear FlightTime

Thanks! BTW - I looked at your User page - we share a lot of the same taste in music. I know I am new here at Wikipedia, but I am really trying to figure out what is going on here. First I was blocked for a couple of days, justifiably I suppose, for a statement I made on the Kamala Harris talk page about how she got high-paying appointments from the person she was sleeping with, and how he jump-started her career. So be it. Since then, I have tried to make good edits with cites to reliable sources but have been slammed by one admin and piled on by others, and ended up with a topic ban about US politics. And the reasons given were stuff like having an agenda and a "pointy" remark - whatever that is. To make matters worse the topic ban is apparently permanent and the only people I can appeal to are the admin who applied the ban and admins who support the decision. In the meantime, there is an editor who complained about me but whose biased edits, extreme agenda, and confrontational attitude dwarf anything I have done by orders of magnitude. I guess I am just frustrated and trying to figure out how to fix this mess. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

3RR Warning on Shooting of Justine Damond

Your recent editing history at Shooting of Justine Damond 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. You have reverted three times in the past 12 hours: 1st, 2nd, 3rd. Make no further reverts, go to the Article's Talk Page at Talk:Shooting of Justine Damond, and start a discussion there if you wish to continue pursuing the issue. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear AzureCitizen (talk: You stated a rule that an editor may not make MORE THAN 3 EDITS in 24 hours, then said I violated the rule by making 3 edits. This is inconsistent. Assuming you stated the rule correctly, I didn't violate the rule. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I never said you violated the rule by making 3 edits. I said "You have reverted three times in the past 12 hours: 1st, 2nd, 3rd. Make no further reverts, go to the Article's Talk Page at Talk:Shooting of Justine Damond, and start a discussion there if you wish to continue pursuing the issue." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear AzureCitizen - Since I did nothing wrong, why did you feel it necessary to send me a warning? I have been blocked for "disruptive editing", an arbitrary and discretionary standard, based on my edits to the Damond article and other articles. Posting warnings like this, when I didn't violate any rules, and my edits were accurate and appropriate, only serve to fan the flames of those seeking to burn me at the stake. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Just saw your message here; not sure why the system didn't send me a ping. In any event, the 3RR template warning is supposed to be applied before a user makes a 4th revert, to warn them to not make that 4th revert. You reverted three times, hence I stopped by your Talk Page to warn you that another revert would cause you to bust the 3RR rule, and gave you advice about what to do next (i.e., go to the Talk Page to discuss instead of reverting again). The best way you can avoid receiving 3RR template warnings in the future is to only revert once (possibly twice if you feel it's really warranted and you've already commented on the article's Talk Page to show good cause), and try to keep in mind that when you're the one trying to change the steady state of an article, you're better off following the Bold-Revert-Discuss explanatory supplementary to Wikipedia's Consensus Policy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear AzureCitizen -

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

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

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 ~~~~}}.  Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Parlez Moi Indefinite - really? What exactly did I do that was disruptive, let alone bad enough to warrant an indefinite ban? I edited non-political articles (one about a murder and one about a football player which was nothing more than removing a sentence fragment). Some explanation would be appreciated. Thanks. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chartreuse&Puce: You started to tendentious edit the article on the shooting of Justine Damond within less than a week of being blocked for violating your topic ban. It is pretty clear that your time on Wikipedia has come to a close --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 11:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Parlez Moi How was that a tendentious edit? Justine Damond was murdered. Her killer was convicted of murder. There is nothing tendentious or disruptive or political or problematic with calling a murder a murder. There was no reason to give me a block, let alone an indefinite block, based on this. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Parlez Moi If my edit of the Justine Damond article meets the threshold of tendentious editing, then why hasn't Snooganssnoogans been indefinitely blocked? I looked at this editor's edits (and there are a lot of them - this editor seems to edit full time), and many of them are the very definition of tendentious editing. If you don't believe me go look for yourself. If I deserve an indefinite block, then Snooganssnoogans certainly does as well. If you apply the standards for indefinite blocking equally and fairly, then do the right thing as an administrator and block Snooganssnoogans indefinitely. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chartreuse&Puce: Please read WP:NOTTHEM and WP:NOJUSTICE --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Parlez Moi

OK I read what you cited. In other words - on Wikipedia any editor can be blocked without cause, standards for blocking are arbitrary and discretionary, the standards are not applied uniformly, no one is to mention that standards are not applied equally, it is not fair, there is no justice, no one has rights, and there is no recourse for anyone who disagrees. Have I summarized the cited policies accurately? Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)