Rafe87

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rafe87. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Google Books

If you look on Google Books, you can often find secondary or tertiary sources for things. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I did find one source that can be useful there. Tomorrow I should be posting an updated version of the proposed paragraph if I find more! Rafe87 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isabel Kershner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2017 (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).

Rafe87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. I don't even know how to use them. (I wish I did, though, but for other reasons.) Rafe87 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You forgot to provide your IP address, so we can't investigate your claim. You may use WhatIsMyIP to find your IP address. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS. Yamla (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2017 (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 accepted the request.

Rafe87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

IP is 177.134.222.176

Accept reason:

The IP appears to no longer be an open proxy, so I have unblocked it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  04:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought

Hello Rafe87. An unsolicited bit of friendly advice, which I hope you'll take in the right spirit. You were completely correct about the disputed content at Colin Jackson, but it's generally better not to personalize a disagreement in that way. I know firsthand how frustrating it can be to deal with this sort of situation, but making an extra effort to be patient and polite on the talk page, and leaving a more neutrally-worded post on the WikiProject page, is likely to help you prevail in a dispute. It may even win you an unexpected ally or two somewhere down the road. Your decision, of course, but I've seen some level-headed editors taken out of the running when they let that kind of thing get under their skin. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rafe87. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to Haditha massacre as labelling news website NewsMax as "far-right" (a) needs a reliable source, and (b) without RS is not WP:NEUTRAL. It may well be a far-right website, I don't know it, but if RS supports the claim, then it should go into the NewsMax article for a start. Thanks, Batternut (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC) it’s really fun to just change what people say but i haven’t :)

ALERT

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Report at AE

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=840678810&oldid=840533076--יניב הורון (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've closed this with: "Raf87 has now been notified properly of discretionary sanctions and the assumption is that they fully understand the editing restrictions and behavioral expectations involved in the area." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for gender=related disputes or contreversies etc

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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.

Doug Weller talk 12:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages biased messages on project talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I have not "left messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision". I have left messages on PROJECT TALK PAGES. Withdraw your accusation now. Rafe87 (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia policy against inviting users on PROJECT TALK PAGES to take in a discussion elsewhere to settler a dispute, NeilN. Quit moving the goal posts in order to avoid admitting your accusation against me was plain wrong.Rafe87 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:CANVASS: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Anti-Arabism. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Note I changed the section heading. Please don't change it back. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brockhampton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Report at AE

[1]--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gatestone Institute. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
This is the fifth occasion in which you have attempted to unilaterally remove an NPOV template while a discussion is ongoing. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please use article talk pages to discuss article content, and not the conduct of other users. You have now twice baselessly accused me of seeking to "accommodate bigotry", which is inconsistent with several general principles passed by the Arbitration Committee. I will take this further if necessary. Endymion.12 (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Take a hike, moron. You have no right to remove what I say in the Talk Pages. Rafe87 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rafe87: One more attack like that and I'll make a post at WP:ANI. I notice you have already been blocked once for personal attacks and harassment, so it's advisable that you stop doing this. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

1RR (original author provision)

You violated the original author provision of ARBPIA 1RR, in reverting content you authored less than 24 hours since it was reverted. Kindly self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rafe87. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:Tone

Hi, Rafe87. When making edits like this, keep WP:Tone in mind. By that, I mean, for example, per MOS:PERSON, the use of first-person pronouns such as "we" are not used on Wikipedia (except for when quoting a source or the other exceptions the guideline gives). And wording like "in fact" is WP:Editorializing. Also take care to make sure that you are not engaging in WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Razan al-Najjar

The New York Times published an investigation of the killing of Razan al-Najjar. Ira Stoll wrote a column in The Algemeiner attacking the investigation. Stoll's column was incoherent, rambling, tendentious nonsense. I summarized Stoll's column to demonstrate the nature of the attacks. Why don't you want to let readers see for themselves that the attacks on the Times story are tendentious nonsense? --Nbauman (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sex differences in intelligence article

As noted on the article's talk page, I will fix up the entire article. Just give me the weekend to do it. Although I'd rather not spend my weekend on this, it's a good thing that you have urged on fixing up the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated info

I am Salvatore Antonio, and I did ask that the line stating my sexual preference be removed, because I have never stated this information in any press, and definitely did not in the article that was cited (written by Richard Burnett). Please respect my right to disclose information on my own terms and not publish unsubstantiated inormation. Meduso (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Meduso: You could have saved us time and told you were Antonio from the beginning. This would have been advisable because on Wikipedia there are restrictions on the ability of editors to change an article if they have a personal stake in the topic. Incidentally, this entry also contains information about your sexual orientation using Burnett's article as reference (which is where I found it).Rafe87 (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kathua rape case. Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

New message from DiplomatTesterMan

Hello, Rafe87. You have new messages at Talk:Kathua rape case.
Message added 05:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have replied to your comment. Please see. DTM (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Kathua rape case that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Violation of editing restrictions on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

This edit[2] is a violation of this editing restriction: "24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts." You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the rule that applied was the 3RR. I think you should consider reverting yourself, though; not everything that you deleted was "synthesis", Snooganssnoogans. Rafe87 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop with the unexplained insertion of improper content in article space. Consider using Wikia instead. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

- MrX 🖋 14:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Criticism of the BBC. - MrX 🖋 13:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

Hello, I'm WMSR. 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 Media coverage of Bernie Sanders 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. Thank you. WMSR (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

My edits are fair; Jacobin is a legitimate source for opinion and the entry cites it in numerous other lines not written by me. The one who's being animated by bias there is you. Do better, WMSR. Rafe87 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The fact that it is cited in other parts of the article is equally problematic. Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources to convey facts. Being a legitimate source for opinion is not the same as being a reliable source for factual information. Wikipedia has no business citing a non-notable opinion writer's prediction about how the media will react to something. WMSR (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You have a corrupted, perhaps intentionally mendacious, understanding of what Wikipedia's NPOV policy entails. Opinion articles have never been banished from its entries, and their use is allowed as long as it is made clear that it represents an individual perspective and not the facts themselves. But seeing your behavior in the entry's talk-page, where you're railing against any acknowledgement of Ed Schultz's firing from MSNBC, an extremely notable fact and very relevant to the entry's subject, shows what you're all about. You don't care about notability, you care about pushing a pro-corporate media POV.Rafe87 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you posted the same thing on my talk page, I responded there, but I strongly suggest striking your personal attacks both places. WMSR (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:WMSR. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. If you have a dispute with me about the content, we can talk about the content. I have been, and will continue to be, open to such discussions. But rest assured, my next step will be ANI if you continue to attack me instead. The accusations you have made against me are unfounded and, plainly, wrong. WMSR (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't talk about yourself in third person, makes you look even worse. Rafe87 (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --WMSR (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

In regards to the ANI discussion created here regarding a dispute you're involved in, I decided to leave you a message in hopes that it will put an end to the issues discussed there. There seems to be an issue regarding the understanding of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (see the link I provided you above for more information), but that's not the main reason why I'm here. I'm here to talk to you about the repeated personal attacks that you've been leaving in your messages and comments toward other editors here (cases in point: 1, 2, and definitely 3). Calling another editor a "POV warrior disguised as someone with merely "procedural" objections" and "a POV warrior with an agenda is (sic) to suppress evidence of media bias against Bernie from Wikipedia", and saying that they have a "corrupted, perhaps intentionally mendacious, understanding" of something - are personal attacks, plain and simple. The comments are directed toward another editor and they're attempting to discuss the editor themselves instead of discussing the content and the issue at-hand. Your edit calling someone a "retard" is absolutely unacceptable... I don't think I need to explain that particular edit any further.

This behavior cannot continue any further. They violate of one of Wikipedia's core fundamental principles and policies, and they have absolutely no positive benefit at all - there's no reason to make personal attacks toward others like this. This is your final warning; you are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines at all times, and your comments are to be in compliance with those policies. Please avoid incivility and the use of personal attacks, and aim toward respectful, peaceful resolve. Word your messages, comments, and responses in a manner that encourages peaceful and fair discussion, establishing a consensus, and building an encyclopedia.

I hope you know (and can understand) that I very much dislike scolding and warning editors like this. It's obviously not a fun thing to do, and I could argue that leaving these kinds of messages is just as crappy as receiving them. Unfortunately, this comes bundled with the duties and responsibilities that I accepted here. I hope that we can resolve these issues, and that we can steer the conversation, the ANI, and the relevant discussions and articles from "you, Wikipedia, comments, what you did, bad" and toward something like, "you, Wikipedia, comments, no more bad, all good, everyone happy", and "Wikipedia article, we discuss, make many edit, WP:NPOV issues go poof". ;-) If you have any questions or need my input or guidance on these policies and how we can improve things and avoid future missteps, my user talk page is always open to you and you're welcome to message me any time you need or want to. I'll be more than happy to help. :-) Thanks for taking a few moments to read and listen to this message, and I hope that it's what turns this issue around and starts the process of having it become an issue in the past, rather than a current issue in the present. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As an administrator new to this matter who has just read several of your recent edits, I want you to know that if you call another editor a "retard" or anything else disgusting like that again, I will block you from editing for a very long time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah and Cullen328: I disagree with the need for warnings here. As noted at ANI, they have been blocked before for personal attacks, and they have a history of not only recent attacks, but ones where they double-down after being accused of attacks. I hope you noted, Cullen, that the edit in which Rafe87 called another editor a "retard" was recent but in a discussion that took place in 2006! And they attacked an editor who has not edited the project since May 2019.

I would have already blocked the user but I consider myself WP:INVOLVED because of edits to Kathua rape case and the spillover to this discussion in December 2019 at Talk:Kathua rape case#Severe downplaying of religious angle in the article. I did not participate in the discussion (I have little time for editors like Rafe87 and their methods of addressing content disputes with attacks), but here are some attacks on editors:

"Indian and Hindu topics on Wikipedia are often the monopoly of Hindutva users, who have an axe to grind against Muslims, and this omission no doubt reflects their influence on Wikipedia."

"But there is, I repeat, a coalition of far-right elements on Wikipedia, including Hindu nationalists and pro-Israel fanatics, many of whom are administrators, whose edits are, in part, dedicated to talking down terroristic crimes against Muslim minorities."

"Jesus, take that boot off your mouth."

" I myself am not in the mood to keep being reverted and threatened repeatedly by Islamophobic Wikipedians for merely asserting facts here." (the word "Islamophobic" was struck by another editor, not by Rafe87)

--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

he said, she said

I just added that (it's an adjective, right?). I still want to take some scissors to that paragraph, but since I've already used up my daily revert, and I know I tend to be too terse/concise (especially in mainspace), it's just as well that I can't mess anything up. Do you mind that addition? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

t, I think your addition is fine — the controversy is indeed a he said/she said situation — but just to pre-empt attempts to revert you it is probably better to find a source describing the controversy as such. — Rafe87 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing restriction violation

Hi Rafe87. You just violated the both editing restictions on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders rather blatantly. If you will please promptly self-revert your reversions, it will probably help you to avoid being blacked or topic banned. - MrX 🖋 14:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for partially self-reverting. Please self-revert these ones also [3]. - MrX 🖋 14:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --WMSR (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for personal attacks. 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 to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 23:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Dude, come on

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --WMSR (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for unsubstantiated accusations against another editor of islamophobia, shortly after a previous 1 week block for personal attacks, and *in the middle* of an ANI thread about other personal attacks. 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 to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

{{ublock|reason=So let me get this straight — if I perceive an editor to be engaging in bigotry on Wikipedia, I should stay mum and not raise my voice? Oh, OK. — Rafe87 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)}}

You messed that up and I can't see why I should spend time fixing it. Obvious decline as you just don't get it. Carry on like this and your block may be extended. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Rafe87, I understand why you are frustrated, but you need to leave wikipedia for one or two weeks then you can make an appropriate unblock request. And I suggest you remove this unblock request.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). Rafe87 (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC) }}.

This isn't really an unblock request. If it's a question directed at me, you can just post it like a normal question. If it's intended as an unblock request, I can fix the formatting, but I can guarantee it will be declined. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the admin above. See my block log, I have always successfully made request for unblock. You need to follow my advice and remove these unblock requests right now.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Floquenbeam, I am redacting this unblock request and have revoked talk page access. Enough is enough. Rafe87, unblock requests containing personal attacks will not be considered. Talk page access revoked. You may still submit an unblock request via the Unblock Ticket Request System, but I suggest a close read of the guide to appealing blocks first. El_C 19:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'll defer to your better familiarity with this user's behavior. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

El_C, Floquenbeam, Is it possible to return his talk page access after one week?. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I won't speak for El_C, but my own inclination would be to instead have them request talk page access be restored at UTRS. An admin there can determine the legitimacy of the request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur — if they want a public unblock request, they may request restoring talk page access via UTRS. El_C 19:54, 25 February 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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)