User talk:GlassBones

I previously edited under the name BattleshipGray. I had trouble accessing that account, so I started editing under a new user name - GlassBones.GlassBones (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Council for National Policy. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Time to stop WP:Hounding User:Snooganssnoogans

If I hear any more of you following them around to revert I'll block your account. ~Awilley (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Awilley. I was of the understanding that an editor could edit whatever articles he chooses, as long as he follows the rules, which I try to do (although with the huge number of rules and guidance it is not always easy). While I have run into Snooganssnoogans, and I have incurred that editor's bullying, battleground behavior, and incivility, I also edit articles other than those edited by that editor. But I understand your message - Snooganssnoogans can operate with impunity, or at the most something amounting to voluntary restrictions, and anyone who has an issue with this editor is subject to sanctions. Got it. GlassBones (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not. Your User talk:BattleshipGray shows you've been in conflict with Snooganssnoogans before. Your first edit to Council for National Policy was to revert SS. Are you trying to say that was a coincidence? Doug Weller talk 16:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

DougWeller - My "conflict", as you describe it, with Snooganssnoogans occurred when I was trying to get Snoog to stop re-inserting language into an article and just discuss the issue on the article's talk page. However, he refused to do so. After my revert, he kept re-inserting language, in the lede, that was cited to an opinion piece that didn't even say what he claimed it said. But I was warned and told blunt force and continuing to put my desired language back into the article would get me banned, and he was congratulated for doing exactly what I was warned about. I backed off and reverted my changes, but to this day I am confused about what was really going on there. Seriously - Snoog revels in doing exactly what I was warned about. I get that he has been editing far longer than me, but why is Snoog protected even when Snoog's edits and overall behavior are questionable? On the BattleshipGray talk page, I was warned by an editor named SashiRolls that having a disagreement with Snoog could get me thrown into the nearest WP:POV Railroad car out of the House and off to the gulags. I wasn't sure what that meant before, but it is becoming more clear.GlassBones (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2019

Also - If an editor is interested in editing any articles about politicians, it would be virtually impossible not to come across Snoog at some point. That editor is here almost every day for hours on end, inserting his point of view and battling and bullying those who oppose him.GlassBones (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

This editor followed me to another page and reverted me.[1] Awilley Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans - Seriously? How on earth could anyone edit anything having to do with news and politics since 1932 without running into you on occasion? You edit for hours each day, nearly every day, and your reach touches countless articles as you insert your biased point of view into everything you touch. I couldn't begin to revert everything you edit, nor am I interested in trying. I haven't touched anything you have edited for weeks. But I am bound to periodically edit an article you have previously edited, as happened with the OANN article. And for that you run to Awilley? This is nothing but attempted intimidation, battling and bullying on your part, and should not be tolerated. If anyone is hounding anyone, it is you hounding me. You think you own Wikipedia and the articles you choose to edit. As is clear from your interactions in Wikipedia, you simply cannot deal civilly with anyone who challenges any of your edits. But I also realize I have crossed the great and powerful Snoogy, and I risk being thrown into a WP:POV Railroad car and sent away. GlassBones (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This editor has just now resumed edit-warring on a page that the editor stalked me to.[2] 20:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans - I returned to a page I edited a month ago, and made a new edit, and it happens to be a page you have also previously edited. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that I can never visit any of the thousands of sites that you have ever edited, because if I do that means I am stalking / Wikihounding you? GlassBones (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The sole reason why you went to that page in the first place was to hound me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans - Then please, by all means, run to Awilley or another Admin and complain about me again. GlassBones (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The third page in four days that you went to only to restore content that I had recently reverted. On Nov 19, I reverted this[3], and on 9 Dec, you restored virtually the same content.[4] Neither you nor your past account had ever edited the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans - You are correct - I never previously edited the John Kasich article prior to Dec. 9, and I inserted language about many people viewing him as a RINO, and cited a Washington Post article. That doesn't mean I am stalking you. I am from Ohio and interested in Ohio politics and politicians, as well as other Ohio topics. I did not revert your undo of my edit. I suggested dealing with this on the article Talk page, which you have not done. This is not a war, and you don't need to maintain a battleground mentality. GlassBones (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans - I suggest that you please make a list of every Wikipedia article over which you claim ownership and for which you feel no one other than you should have the privilege of editing, and post it on your User page. Then myself and others would know where we can and can't go without stepping on your toes and incurring your wrath. If you could do that, it would be very helpful. Thanks! GlassBones (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

On 15 November 2019, Awilley explicitly told this editor that he would be blocked if he continued to hound me to pages and revert me. Since then, the editor has:

• stalked me to the One America News article to revert me[5]
• continued edit-warring with me on a page that he stalked me to pre-15 November[6]
• stalked me to the Illegal immigration to the United States and crime page to rebut content added by me with borderline vandalistic original research[7]
• gone to my talk page to warn me of stalking him (the accusation was ludicrous: my editing on the pages that he complained about preceded his)[8]
• has just today stalked me to the Conrad Black page for the sole purpose of reverting me.[9]

And it's not like this is a highly prolific editor. The editor obviously has some sort of obsession with me, and previous warnings are clearly not working. I cannot edit this encyclopedia when there are accounts who are hounding me across it, reverting me and seeking to exploit my voluntary editing restrictions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Every time I get pinged to look at a hounding accusation I look at the revert diffs and that, so far, has convinced me to take no action. In the Conrad Black diff above, the close juxtaposition in the lede of the biography and pardon clearly implies causation which is problematic without first fleshing it out in the body with multiple high quality reliable sources that explicitly make the connection. ~Awilley (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, when you encouraged me to take up voluntary editing restrictions, you explicitly told me that most editors would not seek to exploit these restrictions. I specifically told you about this user whose old account was overwhelmingly devoted to just following me around to pages and reverting me (like 2/3rds of his edits were along those lines), and whose new account (GlassBones) was also in that vein. You then explicitly told this editor to leave me alone or else be blocked, and effectively said "problem solved". I have now provided clear-cut evidence where this editor has since then continued to stalk me to pages only to revert me (including adding vandalism[[10]] to rebut my addition of peer-reviewed research). That you personally agree with this editor's edits is not relevant in the slightest, unless your position is now that it's OK to hound me across the encyclopedia if you personally approve of the substance of the edits. And for what it's worth, the Conrad Black content has been settled on his talk page, as well as on the BLP noticeboard. There's absolutely no merit at all to removing mention of his pro-Trump hagiography from the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Awilley - I have previously requested that Snooganssnoogans please make a list of every Wikipedia article over which Snoog claims ownership and for which Snoog feels that no one else should have the privilege of editing, and post it on Snoog's User page. I realize to do so would be cumbersome, as Snoog has edited virtually every article on post-1932 U.S. politics at one point or another. But if Snoog would be so kind as to do that, the effort would be greatly appreciated, as myself and others would then know where we can and can't go without stepping on Snoog's toes and incurring the resultant wrath. GlassBones (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You did not accidentally stumble across those relatively obscure pages. What a load of rubbish: (i) I made an edit (the last edit to the page), the next day you show up to revert the exact same thing.[11] (ii) I made an edit (the last edit to the page), three days later you show up to vandalise the page to rebut the content I added[12]. (iii) I made an edit (the last edit to the page besides an admin protection), three days later you show up to revert the exact thing.[13] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans - Since Nov. 15, 2019, you have made thousands of edits. I have revised less than 1% of them. And somehow in your mind this constitutes harassment? Just - wow. GlassBones (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Snoogans, yes, the article is in a better state now, and I'm glad Yopienso took the initiative to add supporting sources to the body and revise the language in the lead. Thank you for starting the talk discussion that led to that.

@GlassBones, it is not practical or reasonable to ask Snoogans to make a list of all the articles over which they "claim ownership". It looks to me like you're just looking for more ammunition to attack Snoogans. ~Awilley (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Awilley - What I was doing was pointing out how ridiculous it is for Snoog to claim that I am harassing Snoog any time I edit an article that Snoog has previously edited, as Snoog has edited thousands of articles. GlassBones (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

And the fact that your first edit to said articles is to revert Snoogans? ~Awilley (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Awilley The article needed to be edited. Snoog's insertion was not supported by a citation to a reliable source. Why was it a problem that I reverted the unsupported edit? Is this editor so much of a snowflake that whenever a edit is questioned or reverted he or she considers it harassment? Or is it just that Snoog thinks he or she is above reproach and anyone who questions this editor's "ownership" of an article must be sanctioned? The question should not be whether or not I am following Snoog around, but whether the edits Snoog or I or any other editor are making are well written and properly cited. GlassBones (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Awilley - The following is a link to an informative article called "How to Ban a POV You Dislike, in 9 Easy Steps", from the POV Railroad page. It was sent to me by another editor who has crossed paths with Snooganssnoogans in the past. While described as "humor" it is nonetheless an instructive article about those editors who are adamant about Wikipedia articles, in particular post-1932 political articles, containing only their point of view, and a warning to those who seek to challenge them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:9STEPS

November 2019

GlassBones, your sweeping and profound assumptions of bad faith towards everybody you disagree with, admin or not, are toxic and bad for the atmosphere here. Examples: [14] (your very first edit from this account),[15], [16], [17]. Please read WP:BATTLE. On another note, please remember to log in to post. I suppose you don't want everybody to know your IP — it's personal information.

Incidentally, I discovered purely by accident that you created this account because you had trouble accessing your old account.[18] Would you care to make a note about your previous account on your (currently redlinked) userpage? It would be helpful to yourself as well as others. Then people would be able to see, for example, that you have already been told about the discretionary sanctions for American politics and biographies of living people, as well as about the 3RR rule, and they won't bother you with fresh alerts here on this page. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC).

I came here to tell you the same thing. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Related accounts has userboxes you can use. WP:VALIDALT describes the policy. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Other than mentioning it here, I have no idea how to make sure folks know that I am the same used previously identified as BattleshipGray. But yes, I had trouble accessing my previous account so I started a new user name. I have no intention of keeping that a secret.GlassBones (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You were advised by me above to put a note about the old username on your userpage, and then you were also tipped off by Doug Weller that you can use a userbox for it if you like. And you still "have no idea", really? Just mentioning it here on your talkpage isn't very useful. This page is short now, but will grow (well, depending on how long you're here for, compare this WP:ANI note by yet another admin) and it'll become increasingly unlikely that people will read up and see your mention. Bishonen | talk 12:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC).

I meant I have no idea how to use a Userbox.GlassBones (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Was there also something wrong with my suggestion that you put a note on your userpage? Do you not know how to do that? Here is your userpage. Please follow the link. Write something in the big empty field, such as for example "This user previously edited as User:BattleshipGray". Then click "Publish page". BTW please indent conversations using colons, to make them more readable. You seem to know how. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC).

Done. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Mason Rudolph (American football), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Cleveland Browns, you may be blocked from editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Aldous Huxley

I'm a big fan of Huxley's work as well. I'm sorry you seemed to gotten off to a rocky start on Wikipedia. May I suggest playing the The Wikipedia Adventure? It'll help get you more familiar with the basics of editing (not that you need it entirely, but it helps). Let me know if you ever need help with anything. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, in the future: never make edits like these: [19] [20] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

UCF Knights football

The NCAA does not recognize football championships at the FBS level, though they do publish the annual selections of various ("major") selectors. Your recent edits have been modified per above. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice for post-1932 American politics and living or recently deceased people

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.

Doug Weller talk 07:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Copying these from your old account so it's clear when you received these alerts. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

More problematic edits

If you continue to make edits such as you did today at One America News Network and MSNBC you may find yourself blocked or topic banned. I'm saying this after reviewing again your edits under your old account. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

What was problematic about either of the edits? I listed citations.GlassBones (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller - Your position seems to be that no one can edit the MSNBC article to refer to MSNBC as left-wing. We also cannot edit the One America News Network article to remove the statement that OANN is right-wing. Am I the only one that finds this double standard problematic?GlassBones (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Apples and oysters, not a double standard. You wanted to use quite old sources according to the edit summary by the editor who reverted you. If you have contemporary sources that meet our criteria, take them to the talk page to see if others agree with you. Don't edit to make a point. A problem with one article is never a justification to make changes in another article as you did. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

GlassBones, I urge you to mind the various warnings you seem to attract with your edits on politics-related topics. They are disruptive, they waste other editors' time and attention, and they do not help improve the articles with well-sourced consensus content. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

MSNBC

I told you, this wouldn't be easy. So they are saying that since the WaPo and NYT and more left, that makes MSNBC not left? I don't see how you can win at this. Just add a simple statement to state the obvious is a major undertaking. --rogerd (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

--rogerd - Agreed. This is ridiculous. GlassBones (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Rogerd - I am done editing political topics. Dealing with all the liberal editors is simply not worth the aggravation. It would be next to impossible to ever get consensus for anything that doesn't reflect a liberal point of view. They either don't accept that there is bias or that it is an issue. But the worst thing is that they simply refuse to use reason and logic in discussions. The result is that articles about conservatives are less than flattering, often using inflammatory language, while the articles about liberals read like campaign brochures. GlassBones (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Formatting in talk pages

I just cleaned up your last two talk entries, you used [[User|ValarianB]], when you should have used {{u|ValarianB}}, which is a link to the {{user link}} template. Personally, I prefer the {{ping}} template, which will send a notification back to the user. Using the [[User|rogerd]], like you just did, doesn't do what you think it does. I just links to user but puts a different name on the link (see piped link) If you have any questions, please ask me. --rogerd (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Rogerd - Thanks.GlassBones (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

just to be clear the square brackets are for links, either direct or piped, while the curly brackets are for templates. A template is a Wikipedia page created to be included in other pages, Most templates are scripts using MediaWiki parser functions, nicknamed "magic words", a simple scripting language.

I see that you are not just editing on political topics, but history, which is good, because you will make yourself tired very quickly if you just engage in political editing, which is almost always contentious. I personally am interested in rock and roll, aviation, photography, American history, baseball, & college sports. I would recommend you, in addition to the more contentious articles, also work on stuff that is fun to you. --rogerd (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Rogerd - That is certainly good advice. The editors here seem to be overwhelmingly liberal, and often fanatical about protecting their point of view in political editing. GlassBones (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Rogerd - I recently tried just adding mention of the "wise Latina" statements made repeatedly by Justice Sotomayor, into the lede of her article. Even that is being strongly opposed. (Check out the Talk page for that article) One editor even called it a "faux controversy" as if I just made it up. These full time liberal editors can be fanatics. GlassBones (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

December 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on MSNBC; 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. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've had to suppress an edit of yours (that you later deleted) as a BLP violation

It's possible that we might print a rumour that had had a lot of publicity in the mainstream media, but editors should never add unsourced material as you did to Marc Dann. You deleted it but it remained in the edit history for anyone to see. Now any Administrator can do something called revision/delete, which means only Administrators can see it. But even that isn't sufficient in the case of an edit such as yours, but I'm one of the few Admins that can suppress an edit so that even other Admins can't see it. WP:BLP is a policy we take extremely seriously, and I'm disappointed if you didn't read it after I gave you a standard alert on the sanctions in that area. WP:VERIFY is also core policy, and I see that your latest edit[21] is unsourced. Hopefully you can fix that. If you don't know how to cite sources, read Help:Referencing for beginners. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

talk - Thank you for taking care of that. GlassBones (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, GlassBones! 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! X1\ (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2019 (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

Edit-warring on Sonia Sotomayor

Your recent editing history 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear :Snoog - No problem. Please discuss your reversion of my edit on the article Talk page in a professional manner. Your reversion with no explanation other than a flippant response of "faux controversy" was not helpful, and demonstrated that the reversion was simply to restore your point of view and keep any mention of the controversy over Sotomayor's racist, sexist statement buried deep in the article. Further - You started this so-called "edit war" by reverting my edit to change content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Finally - you obviously edit for hours virtually every day. Is editing Wikipedia your paid profession? GlassBones (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Mr. Peanut, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. There has been consensus against using past tense, as this reflects PR fictions. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Democratic Party (United States)

Your recent editing history 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans Stop posting this on my Talk page. I am not edit-warring or violating three-revert or anything else. Enough with the harassment. GlassBones (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Conrad Black

You need to stop that or you'll get indefinitely blocked again. YoPienso (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are restricted to one revert per 24 hours on topic banned from articles/subjects related to modern American politics.

You have been sanctioned for tendentious editing and edit warring.

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. ~Awilley (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Awilley - The phrase "tendentious editing and edit warring" is rather vague; how do I find out what specific actions resulted in these sanctions? GlassBones (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

For one, your editing at Conrad Black and failure to engage with me at talk. YoPienso (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

YoPienso - I have no issue engaging with you. GlassBones (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you argue that a sentence about someone writing a flattering biography about the person who pardoned them of a crime is UNDUE weight for the lead [22], yet somehow it's ok to add an entire paragraph to the lede of Nancy Pelosi that she threw a "tantrum" in ripping up a copy of the State of the Union [23] A double standard like that is clear evidence of axe grinding and tendentious editing. And in your last 3 reverts at Conrad Black you pretended that there were no sources for the word "flattering" when in fact several had been provided on talk and, before the last 2 reverts, one citation had been added to the body of the article. When you stop engaging with reasonable arguments and just revert without any edit summaries that's edit warring. ~Awilley (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Awilley: Could you please revert his latest edit at that article? YoPienso (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

No. It's not a pressing issue...both revisions are accurate and there's no vandalism or BLP at stake. ~Awilley (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for looking and responding. YoPienso (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@GlassBones, please note that I am converting your 1RR restriction into a simple topic ban. In looking at your latest dispute with Snoogans I couldn't see that you have made any effort to rein in the WP:Battleground behavior and axe-grinding that led to the revert restriction. In fact diffs like this [24] [25] [26] and this [27] suggest that you're actively trying to reignite old disputes. Please take some time to read what a WP:Topic ban means and realize that, like the 1RR restriction, this applies to all edits related to American politics anywhere on the project, not just articles specifically about American politics. The duration of the topic ban will be 1 year beginning today. ~Awilley (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Awilley - So on your sole discretion as an administrator, my alleged violation of the nebulous and highly subjective standard of WP:Battleground has been penalized with me being sent on the WP:POV Railroad to the gulags for a year. This one-year ban is arbitrary, capricious, and ridiculous. Please let me know how to appeal. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

To answer your question on Snoogan's talk page, migrant caravans is a violation, Battle of Thames is not because that doesn't qualify as modern American politics. The cutoff is 1932. Stuff before that is safe. In the future it's best not to ask Snoogans since you have been specifically disinvited from that talk page. I or any other admin can answer your questions. ~Awilley (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Clinton Body Count, you may be blocked from editing. That was clearly inappropriate. Please don’t attempt to introduce false balance from a WP:PROFRINGE point of view. That conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked, not “partially”. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus - It is accurate to state that the theory was only partially debunked. My change was NOT disruptive editing. The citations listed only discuss SOME, not ALL, of the dead people linked to the Clintons by the body count theory. Stating that the theory was completely debunked is inaccurate. GlassBones (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020 II

Please do not attack other editors. 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. This is in reference to [28] O3000 (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:GlassBones reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - MrX 🖋 21:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for violating your 1RR sanction

I have blocked you for 48 hours for violating Awilley's 1RR sanction on American politics articles. If you wish to appeal this block, you can do so at WP:AE — write your appeal below and request to have it moved to that page. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen - It was my understanding that the 1RR sanction was for articles on post-1932 American politics. The OANN article is about a news source.

Please move the statement above to the appeal page. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I've already answered you at the AN3 page, I'll repeat myself here: That article falls squarely under post-1932 American politics. Can you really read any part of it and not see that it's a highly political "news source"? See also the AE template about it on the talkpage. Your own reverts were also notably political. Another time, please ask before you revert if you're in any doubt at all. Bishonen | talk 22:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC).

I'll move your appeal, but I won't undertake to give the background, i. e. your sanction by Awilley, with a link, and my block, also with a link. In other words, please write a fuller and more explanatory appeal, so that people reading it at WP:AE can understand it. Just moving the sentence you have written is not meaningful. If you have trouble creating the links, I'll help you with that. Bishonen | talk 22:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen - Thanks, but no need to do all that. I do not wish to appeal. GlassBones (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a bit of a relief, personally — I was just going to bed. (Different timezone.) But I'll do one thing: ping @Awilley:. See if he thinks the block is reasonable. Feel free to change it if you like, Awilley. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC).

@Awilley: - No need to decide about changing it; please leave the block in place. I can sit out for a few days. Dealing with some of these editors is too exhausting anyway. GlassBones (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	For not appealing your recent block, I hereby award you this barnstar for avoiding that drama and taking a step back instead. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Your addition to Ray Brown (Negro leagues pitcher) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban

I just noticed a comment string on Awilley's Talk page. What is happening to SashiRolls, and as described by Levivich, seems very similar to what has happened to me and how I now have a 1-year ban from post-1932 US politics. Simply stated, I had the temerity to cross Snooganssnoogans. (I pinged Snoog - I'm not going to talk about another editor behind his back.) I admit I should have known better than challenge him, as I was warned by more than editor that if I challenged the great and powerful Snoog I would be severely punished. There is no editor I am aware of with more of a battleground mentality than Snooganssnoogans. (Don't take my word for it - the history of Snoog's behavior can easily be pieced together from Wiki sources. Further, just look at his User page - he delights in having a battleground mentality.) Snoog routinely reverts other editors' edits with no explanation whatsoever given; in the rare event that there is any explanation it is often something flippant like "nonsense", "conspiracy" or "faux controversy", perhaps with an insult tossed in as well. When asked to discuss edits and Undos on the article Talk page, in a reasonable manner, he often refuses. If an editor challenges Snoog regarding an Undo, Snoog then accuses the editor of edit-warring, stating that since Snoog edited the article first, Snoog can never be edit-warring, arguing that only the more recent editor can be the culprit. Of course, this argument makes little sense, as any US post-1932 article is likely to have been edited at some point by Snoog, as he is an extremely prolific full-time editor in that topic area. What his argument, which is supported by his buddies and seemingly some admins, effectually does is to make Snoog the owner of any article he has ever touched, and any editor who has a differing POV can never have his or her edits remain despite relevant content with appropriate cites to reliable sources. If the edit-warring argument is not enough, Snoog will accuse the editor of stalking if the editor goes to any site previous touched by Snoog. Of course, Snoog also throws in plenty of bullying and harassment for good measure if the other editor persists in trying to insert edits into any articles for which Snoog claims ownership (even though it would be next to impossible for anyone to have the time to undo even a fraction of Snoog's edits). Snoog will also play the snowflake victim card, running to an Admin to claim edit-warring, stalking, harassment, etc. if he is challenged in any way for his Undos or if he perceives another editor as a threat to his desire to edit all articles as he pleases. When that happens, his buddies are quick to pile on to get the offending editor blocked or banned. (Snoog has no fear of this process, despite his own lengthy history of repeated violations of Wiki policies regarding Battleground, BRD, edit-warring, bullying, harassment, etc., as the worst that ever happens to Snoog is a short-term block or voluntary sanctions.) Once banned, the editor is left with a difficult choice - appeal to the community (which obviously includes Snoog and his pals) or appeal to the Admin who put the ban in place to begin with. The end result is that the other editor will get frustrated and finally give up trying to ever edit Wikipedia, or be sent to the gulags never to be heard from again, and all post-1932 US politics Wikipedia articles reflect only the biased POV of Snoog and his cohorts. GlassBones (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

In any event, I plan to appeal, via one of the two options, even though I realize that the likelihood of success is slim. GlassBones (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

If you plan to appeal I would suggest that you start with some introspection and modify your own behavior. That more than anything else is what will determine whether the appeal is successful. Part of the rationale for the ban was Battlefield behavior, and comments like the above could easily be cited as evidence of that. Wikipedia wants editors who are able to focus on content, not other contributors. ~Awilley (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, Awilley. I have never had a real issue with other editors, at least not to the level of my conflicts with Snoog. And I am obviously not alone. My point was simply that Wikipedia has an editor who makes life miserable for anyone who disagrees with him, who revels in a battlefield mentality, and is seemingly above reproach. I have not come across any other editor here who is more deserving of a ban. Seriously - I would love to focus on content and just have serious, reasoned discussions on Talk pages, but Snoog's battleground behavior, bullying, incivility, and refusal to discuss edits in a reasonable, mature way are difficult to deal with, and admittedly I have not dealt with him well. GlassBones (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 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. 

Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:07, 10 March 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."

Per WP:TOPICBAN, you may not discuss or post about post-1932 American politics anywhere on Wikipedia, which extends to your user page and user talk page, unless appealing the sanction. Additionally, the information you added to your userpage violates WP:UP#NOT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't even post dumb quotes by Biden on my User page? I had no idea, but OK. The breadth of this unwarranted topic ban is certainly vast. GlassBones (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, pursuant to the WP:UP#NOT rule you referenced, it seems like the list of "endorsements" on Snooganssnoogans' User page is also a violation and should be removed. GlassBones (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a collection of "hate mail" they've received off- and on-wiki in response to their contributions. I'm not a fan of those types of things on userpages, but it doesn't appear to be a violation and it's at least related to their Wikipedia activities. Your userpage addition was just a copypaste of an edit you tried to make at Joe Biden ([29]) and not related to Wikipedia. As you are under a topic ban for this very subject, it is especially inappropriate. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way - I am not going to appeal this 72-hour block. If I violated the rule, I can accept the punishment. GlassBones (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Your latest edits also appear to violate your topic ban. I have raised this at WP:AE. Guy (help!) 20:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

JzG - I edited a news article - not any article about post-1932 US politics. I also did not insert or remove any political language. Further, I see nothing in the article's editing message warning about it being protected as a US political article. So how exactly do you think I am violating the topic ban? But thank you for running to the Admins with this - hopefully they can clarify this issue for you, Snooganssnoogans, and I. GlassBones (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You edited an article about Fox News, removing content relating to its political bias (and incidentally pursuing your ongoing vendetta against Snoogs); you also made comments about the politics of Chelsea Manning. Guy (help!) 21:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

GuyI do not have a vendetta against Snoog; there is no need for the over-dramatization. And my comments on the Fox News article were simply to re-install the neutral language that Snoog removed (of course, you undid my edit, leaving the article to contain biased language that reflects the POV you want represented). Again - I was not editing a post-1932 article, and I didn't add or delete political language. Now - please get off my Talk page and stop harassing me. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failure to abide by a topic ban, as discussed at AE.

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 ~~~~}}.  RexxS (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

RexxS - How am I supposed to appeal the block if I can't edit anything? And, I get that AWilley explained my topic ban, but I really didn't think my edits to the Fox News article were a violation. If there any way the indefinite block can be just for post-1932 US political articles? GlassBones (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You are still free to edit your talk page, here.

Please take the time to read thoroughly through Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks.

Given that you were blocked following a discussion about your editing in violation of a topic ban, I think that your only feasible course of action is to convince administrators that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead. The argument that 'your edits to Fox News weren't a violation' has already been lost, so your best bet is to face up to that, accept it and move on.

My advice would be to edit another project for a while, such as Simple English Wikipedia, or Wikisource, on any topic except those covered by ARBAPDS, so that you can show your ability to contribute to topics completely unrelated to American politics.

You'll then need to write an appeal that covers what is outlined at WP:NICETRY. If you are sincere, demonstrate an understanding of what you did wrong, and can give a good reason to be unblocked, there is a decent chance that an uninvolved administrator will lift your block – although you will almost certainly remain banned from anything even vaguely related to American politics, and your editing will be subject to increased scrutiny. --RexxS (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Responding to your other question, no, there is not a way to just block you from editing politics-related articles. If there were I would use that instead of a topic ban that relies on you policing yourself. But at this point it's just not technically possible...though we might be getting closer to that with WP:Partial blocks. ~Awilley (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks GlassBones (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)