User talk:Forza2020

Hi Forza2020! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi

You need to be a bit more careful before you change wikilinks. On Falkland Islanders, the links were direct to people articles, you changed this to a rather odd selection.

Regards,

WCM_email 09:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems a friendly warning on your talk page wasn't the correct approach. As a new user to wikipedia, you should be aware that edit warring is likely to result in a block. Consider this a formal warning ref your edit warring.

Your recent editing history at Falkland Islanders 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. WCM_email 10:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No edit warring was intended. My apologies if that is what it appears as. I didn't actually re-vert any edits but made my own changes. Kind regards. Forza2020 (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you were edit warring, and you did revert to re-impose your changes that are incorrect. You should be linking to people articles not the tangential articles you're choosing. Just because you didn't hit the undo button doesn't change the fact that you've edit warred. WCM_email 11:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not link to 'tangential' articles. Also, you are edit warring at the Shetland article. Your revert was inexplicable there. Please stop. Forza2020 (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did. I suggest you read WP:BRD, when your edit is challenged the onus is on you to take your proposal to talk. I've explained why you were reverted. Now please stop edit warring. WCM_email 09:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not once provided an actual explanation for your reversions. The edits made are supported by sources. Forza2020 (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is above, now stop edit warring. WCM_email 15:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that it is you who is edit warring? You also are rolling back constructive edits from reliable sources, and providing a section on 'Language" in common for practically every other geographic location article on Wikipedia. So, again, what is your reasoning for the rollbacks? You need to explain yourself on the talk page. Cheers. Forza2020 (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am at 2RR, you are at 3RR. I would invite you to self-revert and explain yourself on the talk page. Are you prepared to do that? And again I have explained myself - I have reverted you because you are changing directly linked articles, with articles that are tangential to the subject. I really don't understand why you are being so bloody awkward about discussing your edits. WCM_email 16:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we are both at 2RR in terms of the past 24 hours, unless you just reverted me again. I will go to the talk page if you reply. So often on here people revert and tell others to go to the talk page, but then disappear or don't explain themselves. Forza2020 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your knowledge of wikipedia editing is growing fast for an account registered on 28 September 2019. If you have an alternative account, now would be the time to disclose it. I have explained myself to you and it seems that you're reverting out of bad faith presumptions. Do I take it that you refuse to self-revert, having given you that option I would appreciate a reply. WCM_email 16:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never had an issue with you modifying my changes at Shetland, but simply the blind reverts of everything. There was no hostility intended. Regards, Forza2020 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are now at 3RR, please read wp:3RR. If you revert again you will be edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will ignore your last revert, as it was before this warning. I am being very kind.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Doug Weller talk 14:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lana Lokteff; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As per Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Forza2020 (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's four reliable sources for the statement, so what you're quoting and emphasizing is irrelevant. The SPLC is absolutely a reliable source, and insistence otherwise is generally a sign that one shouldn't be editing here. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics." [1] Forza2020 (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Forza2020: Your claim that your reverts on Lana Lokteff are exempt under WP:3RRBLP is not accurate. The statements in question are well sourced. If you continue to engage in this revert war, you will be blocked. ST47 (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not reliable, and are unbiased and defamatory. They also ignore the living person's rejection of such a descriptor as 'supremacist'. According to Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".

Threats of blocking are unwarranted, and in violation of WP. Such slander directed at Miss Lokteff is also grounds for lawsuit in the United States of America based on defamatory accusations of a person's character.Forza2020 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Forza2020 reported by User:Aoi (Result: ). Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring and continual references to "slander" intended to create a chilling effect.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Until you accept and admit that you can't just use the word "slander" as a magic word to get your way, especially when there are sources cited for the statement you dislike, you don't need to be editing.

Wikilawyering to try and argue that the SLPC isn't a reliable source doesn't mean you're right, it means you don't need to be editing that topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Forza2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

According to WP:Biographies of Living Persons: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I disputed that my reversions were exempt from the BLP exception, as the article is about a living person, and the descriptor of 'white supremacist' in the article is from heavily biased, partisan, private, unofficial, non-academic, and unreliable sources making libelous and defamatory claims about this living person and threatening her personal safety and rights. My concerns was about the individual, as well as to safeguard Wikipedia from potential coming lawsuits. My intention was not to be deliberately disruptive, and I sincerely apologize as I strongly felt my edits were exempt from 3RR as per the policy on Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons. Clearly, administrators have now finally stepped in and made their decision on this, and I will cease such edits and abide by their judgement. I never once threatened legal action - not once. I merely was highlighting the potential dangers of such to Wikipedia from others, which I care about improving. I would ask for a limited block period if it is not possible for the block to be lifted outright. Kind regards.

Decline reason:

This indicates you think your edits were appropriate. They weren't. You were removing well-sourced content. While you remain convinced your edits were appropriate, we can't lift your block. Yamla (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

It has been repeatedly explained to you by a variety of editors that the material is sourced. Your failure to heed that is disruptive.

Arguing that you're not actually threatening legal action while still trying to use some hypothetical threat of legal action to get your way violates the spirit of WP:NLT, even if you think you've found some way to avoid the letter. It is disingenuous.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to use a 'hypothetical threat' of legal action to 'get my way'. Nothing I said was a hypothetical threat from myself. I was merely pointing out the defamatory statements and their potential consequences in the United States of America. This is all outlined and taken from Wikipedia:Biography of Living Persons, specifically with regards to the sensitivity of accusations of living persons with regards to their personal safety and legal issues. I wanted an opinion from an actual administrator on this. You have now done so, and I will abide by that. I sincerely apologize for this inconvenience, and I thank you for taking the time to intervene. Forza2020 (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, saying something to the effect of "you could be sued" is no different than saying "I'm going to sue you", or at least it is not treated any differently. You will need to agree to not use such language about slander and lawsuits in the future, and to keep your arguments focused on Wikipedia policy. I'd also like to know what your edits will consist of going forward, such as what articles or topic areas. (other admins, feel free to take action without waiting for me.) 331dot (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, again, apologize. I do not intend to ever edit that article again or its talk page. I do not plan to edit at all for a few weeks, with the exception of one or two articles possibly on history. Forza2020 (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not stop you will lose talk page access as well.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do I not have permission to appeal my block, or to request an unblock? I though that was permitted? Forza2020 (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its how you go about it that matters, and the above did not look good. However you new reasoning is better.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Forza2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I recognize that I was at fault. My previous reasoning for my unblock request was merely to explain my actions. I apologize and have no plan to edit the article where the dispute was, nor to ever mention legal actions in the future - and clearly not even the possibility of such hypothetical action. I, again, never threatened such action, but only mentioned a hypothetical scenario arising from others which I have nothing to do with. Your point, however, is well taken. I was not aware that discussing such was prohibited by WP. I am now well informed and it won't happen again. Regards.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Please review and explain in your own words the meaning of User:Deepfriedokra/ew and affirm that you will follow the alternates to edit warring discussed therein.. To be clear, you will not edit about Lana Lokteff. You will not describe other editors' edits as "slander". @Yamla, Doug Weller, and Ian.thomson: further thoughts?-- Deepfriedokra 16:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will not engage in edit warring, and will not edit anything on the article Lana Lokteff. I also understand to never accuse edits as slander or to even mention potential legal action from others. I again, sincerely apologize. I have been waiting quite a while for my unblock request to be addressed, and would appreciate someone looking into this. Kind regards.Forza2020 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Forza2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #27345 was submitted on Oct 28, 2019 16:26:28. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried both avenues to have my account unblocked, and have followed all instructions. I have informed the administrators of my apology and assurance not to take part in any of the unacceptable activities before that I mistakenly made which resulted in my block. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza2020 (talk • contribs)

•  Checkuser note: This is now a CU block.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You are not permitted to remove declined unblock requests. If you do so again, I will revoke your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My unblock request is still pending. I am not sure what the wait is, but I figured it was being ignored. I thought I'd clear the page at least if it was no longer being considered. My apologies for doing so. Forza2020 (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]