User talk:Edax Mendacium

July 2024

Hello, I'm Ae245. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Invasive species in New Zealand—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Ae245 (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't spam my talk page.

My edit was a reversal of a prior edit which removed the section. Edax Mendacium (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I you wish to discuss, there's a seciton on the relevant talk page. Edax Mendacium (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Sundar Pichai).

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.

Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:28, 22 February 2025 (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"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

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

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. Edax Mendacium (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the discussion below, I am declining your request. Please reread what you've been told below. Once you have read WP:BLP and have decided where you'd like your appeal posted, you are free to make a new request. Yamla (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2025 (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.

I have been unfairly blocked. I am attempting to keep a page intact while consensus is being established. I have left numerous messages on talk pages referring to this discussion, which have been ignored.

If that's the appeal you want copied over, let me know and I'll do so. You will also need to specify whether you would like the appeal to be at the administrators' noticeboard or arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as you may choose either one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look dude I am not a wikipedia lawyer and the UI is utterly impenetrable. I am not familiar with your procedures. I have been attempting to keep relevant, well-sourced information on that page for a while now. Someone took it down and I put it back up. Someone said there had to be consensus, and then took it down again. I am keeping it up there while consensus is being established. There is discussion by me on the talk page which has been ignored by the person contesting.

If you are going to edit any biographies of living persons, I would strongly suggest that you become familiar with that policy, because it is enforced very strictly. One of its cornerstone requirements is that any negative or potentially controversial material in a BLP requires a consensus in favor of inclusion, not just a lack of consensus to exclude. If you are not willing or able to learn and follow BLP policy, you should not be editing BLPs. And I see an ongoing discussion with you on the talk page, so you are not being ignored. Regardless, though, if you want me to copy over an appeal for you, I am willing to do that, but I cannot choose which venue for you because that is your decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The categorization of facts as "negative" is what's at issue. The inclusion of these facts may be interpreted as "negative", but that is entirely subjective. They remain relevant facts, and well-sourced ones. I offered to include even more sources since aspersions were cast on the credibility of the onese I provided.

I don't understand what you're asking me to "choose". I don't understand who else I need to discuss being banned with besides you, since you're the one who decided to ban me. You're not a judge. Or rather if you ARE a judge, this isn't a courtroom.

Negative or potentially controversial. And generally if another editor challenges something on a BLP, you should presume it's potentially controversial. In some cases, even characterizations which are not inherently negative, such as their political or religious beliefs or that they are homosexual, could still be controversial. As to the venue of appeal, AE is where you already participated. There, uninvolved administrators will decide whether the sanction was appropriate and should remain. At AN, a discussion by the community at large will decide that. So, it really just depends which format you prefer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By that rationale a user could indefinitely suppress all the information of all living people on wikipedia by challenging it, triggering the "potentially controversial" state.

I made my last contribution to the talk page ten days ago. It has been ignored (and *I* was accused of ignoring the discussion prior to that). How long must it sit there before we say that the people challenging it are ignoring it? Indefinitely?

So I could go to any BLP and challenge something, suppress it, and disregard the talk indefinitely, keeping the information suppressed?

It sure seems like good faith is not happening here.

If you want to argue over the BLP policy, you can do that at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. I'm not interested in doing that here. If you would like your appeal posted, please ensure that the next thing you say is a choice of where. Or, since you're only partially blocked, you could do it yourself, but I'm happy to do it if you like since the block message does offer that option. But I can't do it if I don't know where to do it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, once I point out that what you're saying makes no sense, your reaction is "I don't wish to discuss, ask someone else"? That doesn't sound like good faith to me.

I understand that you're threatening to ignore my appeal if I don't do as you say. Again, I don't have any experience of this bureaucracy and I don't understand what you're asking me to decide. So I am unable to do so. If you, an administrator with the power to ban me, are so paralyzed by indecision here, then how could I be otherwise?

You chose to ban me. I've engaged in good faith. You choose what to do next.

It's not that it's "indecision". It's not my decision to make, and I cannot make it for you. I explained above that AE means review by uninvolved admins, while AN means review by the community at large. I am really not sure how I could make it any clearer than that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]