User talk:Disagreeable entity

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Mary P. Koss. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My informations was reference fine and if not let me know how. Talking about her without this is like talking about Hitler without his views on Jews. It is important and needs to be there since she has a ton on influence in this field and has denied that men can be raped by women. Disagreeable entity (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Mary P. Koss. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is my information poorly referenced? Disagreeable entity (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not believe I violated the biographies of living persons policy. When I questioned the administrator why they claimed my source was poorly cited before the ban they failed to provide an answer. I feel I was banned due to an administrator's personal bias.

Decline reason:

You are blocked, not banned.(blocks and bans are different) You were told why your edits violated policy, but you persisted. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, not what people say about themselves. If you have independent sources with her views, please offer them. If you want to tell the world about what she says sourced to herself, you will need to do that somewhere else. As you don't see how your edits violated policy, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2021 (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.

Note that after Disagreeable entity was blocked for BLP-violating edits on Mary P. Koss, the same edits were performed by 2601:647:4b00:44e0:8872:2808:79d9:e4c7 (talk · contribs), and after that IP address was blocked and the article semi-protected, the same issue was pursued by 198.48.143.42 (talk · contribs) on the article talk page, including also personal attacks against any editor disagreeing with the IP editor. This block-evading behavior should be taken into consideration for any future unblock requests. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wasnt me those were other people so I was not block evading. Disagreeable entity (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert

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

You have shown interest in any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated 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.

Crossroads -talk- 19:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people

You have been sanctioned for continuing the disruptive behavior that led to your partial block from Mary P. Koss and the associated talk page on other gender-related pages. Most recently this has taken the form of edit warring at Domestic violence.

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/Gender and sexuality#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. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving you a lesser sanction than the WP:NOTHERE block I was considering, since you appear to be here solely to POV-push on gender-related topics. Please prove me wrong by editing constructively in another topic area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Disagreeable entity: The above notification states that you are subject to an "indefinite topic ban" (click the link to see what that means). You must not edit Domestic violence or comment at its talk page or comment anywhere on Wikipedia regarding that topic—read the above notice to see what else is covered. Your recent edit (05:55, 31 March 2021) violates that topic ban and you must immediately revert yourself and stop editing/commenting. Read "immediately" to mean that you will be blocked if you make any other edits or comments without first reverting yourself. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you wrote at Talk:Domestic violence that "I'm clearly not banned its confusing me too." I think you maybe aren't quite familiar with what a ban means on Wikipedia -- please read WP:BANBLOCKDIFF, which will clear up why you are technically able to edit the page. However, please note that breaching the topic ban by continuing to edit the page or its talk page will result in a block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeable entity, I'm confused by this edit, in which you back-dated by one day, the sig-timestamp of another user's comment at Talk:Domestic violence who was responding to you. There doesn't appear to be anything sneaky going on with respect to timestamps of your own posts there, so apart from being a violation of WP:TPO, I just don't understand the purpose of it. Would you care to comment on what you were intending with that edit? Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; I see you self-reverted; I assume it was some kind of fat-finger error. Mathglot (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comment on Gandydancer's talk page appears to be another topic ban violation. Generalrelative (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 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. 

GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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."


@GorillaWarfare: Please note that Disagreeable entity has once again violated their topic ban with this comment on Talk:Sexism: [1] Generalrelative (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. 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. 

GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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."

I have blocked you for a week for your second violation of your topic ban. Please note that another violation is likely to result in an indefinite block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
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 ~~~~}}.  Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]