User talk:Lima Bean Farmer: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:28, 23 December 2020

Welcome!

Hi Wjrz nj forecast! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Sdkb (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent you from persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, would you mind being more specific on why you have blocked me from editing? You sent me an article about unsourced editing but it had nothing on it about being blocked or specify why I was blocked. I plan to request to be unblocked but I would first like to work with you to understand why blocking me was what you did. Thank you for your time Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

No warningWjrz nj forecast (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. You have been previously and sufficiently warned about not adding unsourced content, as evidenced by the two discussions above. Verifiability is one of the core policies of Wikipedia, and you are expected to abide by it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:24, 15 May 2020 (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 had previously made some edits which some people thought were controversial. Since then I have not edited any of those pages. Last night I made some edits on other pages, and followed the guidelines which my fellow editors gave me. Since I did not believe that the edits were controversial, I did not add a cited source. Based on the articles which AldezD, Schazjmd, and NinjaRobotPirate gave including the reason to block me, state that I only need a citation if an edit was controversial. I did not believe the edits I made were controversial and added them in good faith. Some point last night, while I was asleep in my time zone, I was brought to the administrators board and would like to have responded. When I woke up this morning, I was blocked. Once again, the pages where my edits were reverted I have not touched. I would have appreciated a warning from NinjaRobotPirate, but I never received one. I was just blocked. I promise not to add any more unsourced edits. I enjoy Wikipedia discussions and was about to participate in one before I realized I was blocked. Thank you Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page already has enough warnings and doesn't need another. You seem to think that the burden is on other people to add citations to your edits, but policy says it is on you. That means that you can't tell people to go find a citation to verify content that you've added. Statements that have been challenged are, by definition, controversial and require a citation. If you can demonstrate that you understand how to add a citation, I'll unblock you. Just reply below this message, here on your talk page, with an encyclopedic statement that has an inline citation. Please ensure that the source verifies the statement and is reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Broadway shows have had their production halted until September 6, 2020. Ryan McPhee (May 12, 2020). "Broadway shutdown extended through the summer due to ongoing coronavirus crisis". Playbill.com. Playbill.com. Retrieved May 15, 2020. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, I hope you honor your deal and unblock me.

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).

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

Request reason:

Fulfilled request Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

NRP is welcome to unblock if he wishes, but since that reference above is not actually formatted as an inline citation, I'm not convinced you actually do understand how to cite information here. Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:58, 15 May 2020 (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.

NinjaRobotPirate said I’d be unblocked if I demonstrated how to cite a reliable source. Since I have done this I hope to be unblocked and to continue productive editing.

All Broadway shows have had their production halted until September 6, 2020. (Ryan McPhee, May 12, 2020). Is that better Yunshui? Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway productions have been suspending through September 6, 2020. <ref>McPhee, Ryan. “Broadway shutdown extreme through the summer due to ongoing coronavirus crisis”. Playbill.com, May 12, 2020. I followed the exact format for inline editing. Yunshui or NinjaRobotPirate please unblock me now. I made edits in good faith and won’t do it again as I’ve said before. I really don’t want to make another official request to be unblocked.

Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Followed guidelines and administrator requests Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've unblocked you, but please consider that policy says that "any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged" requires a citation. That means that if someone challenges your unsourced addition, it can not be re-added until you provide a source for it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for once again requesting that I be unblocked. I would like to continue making productive edits (at least make comments in talk pages) as soon as possible. I have reviewed Wikipedia’s policy on being unblocked multiple times. I will not post any more controversial comments without a reliable source. Administrators have asked me to show a sample of a cited edit which I have showed. I did not realize that the edits that I made were controversial/required a source. Previously, I have not reverted edits unless I believed them to be reliable or necessary. Other than that I have not engaged in edit warring and have taken other administrators’ and editors’ advice as well as “contacted” them. My edits were not malicious. I appreciate your time, I have not been purposefully making flagrant requests. Each time I do I am promised to be unblocked but then I never am. Your fellow Wikipedian, Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z17

I’m sorry this has been a complete misunderstanding. I will change my username, as I was willing to do with User:AlanM1 and on the administrators board. I am not sure what you mean by promotional content, I have never posted anything that I believe promotes a business. I am not paid by anyone, I am aware that that is against policy. Please point me to where you see promotional or advertising content. I really did not mean for anything to be promotional or advertising. Please explain User:Orangemike. Thank uou Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your username is "Wjrz nj forecast" and then for a userpage you post "Follow the 2020 House Elections!!! And the Covid 19 shut downs." How are we to interpret that, if not as an advertisement for people to listen to WJRZ in New Jersey? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m so sorry, I meant that I follow the 2020 elections and the covid 19 shutdown. That’s where I have done the majority of my editing. I was most definitely not intending to encourage people to listen to WJRZ. I will also delete the section stating that says follow the elections. I really am not promotional nor am I paid by anyone. Thank you User:Orangemike Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you let me change my username and my user page, we can put this behind us as a complete misunderstanding. Thank you User:Orangemike. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

Orangemike agrees to unblock once rename is successful. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 04:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this has been so fraught. Maybe now. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 05:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek, Yunshui, and NinjaRobotPirate: Ok to unblock? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 05:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC) { @Orangemike: --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 05:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So many unblock requests and sections... I personally wouldn't have reblocked the account, so I'd support an unblock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good by me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that a WP:CIR-based block will follow in the not-too-distant future, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. No objection here. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lima Bean Farmer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Lima Bean Farmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

same as above

Decline reason:

You had 3 (three!!!) open unblock requests. That's abusive. There's no reason, ever, to have more than one open unblock request at a time. I see your username has been changed and you are free to make one (exactly one) more unblock request which addresses your inappropriate edits and which tells us what you'll write about instead. Note that I didn't review your multiple unblock requests, so this is a procedural decline. Note if you make multiple simultaneous unblock requests again, you will be clearly demonstrating you lack the capability to edit here and will lose access to your talk page. Similarly if you make an unblock request which does not address your promotional edits or which does not tell us specifically what you'll write about instead. Yamla (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

globally renamed Wjrz nj forecast to Lima Bean Farmer

globally renamed Wjrz nj forecast to Lima Bean Farmer --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 05:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that I can be unblocked now Deep fried okra? I appreciate you renaming me, but why are CaptainEek, Yunshui, and NinjaRobotPirate being asked about this? I have nothing against these users but I was just wondering if it was a procedural thing. Since the block was due to my username and it has now been changed, I feel that an unblock would be fair, especially since Orangemike said it would be. Also I apologize, but I don’t see how to make your username bold, so apologies for that. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought this would go better. They either blocked or declined to unblock. I cannot unblock on my own. . --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 13:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: If this block was only for the username, I have no objections to you overriding my decline and lifting the block. However, the block notice is for promotional edits. --Yamla (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Good point. I think the promo edits have been dealt with somewhere in this growing maelstrom of a talk page. I will not unblock without a consensus. Lima Bean Farmer-- for the sake of my poor eyes, please reiterate how you will avoid promotional editing. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 14:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained about 10 times that I never did make promotional editing. I simply put on my page “follow the 2020 house elections and the covid 19 pandemic.” This was meant to state that I follow these things as this is where I do most of my editing. It was never meant to be promotional, just bad grammar. I’ve already stated so many times that I would change this to say that’s what I follow. User:Orangemike found this as a reason to unblock me. User:Yamla, you’d unblock statement did not seem to be in good faith. As much as I don’t like to give up on things, I feel that I will never be able to edit again. I’ve asked that my account be re instated so many times. There’s only so much I can do. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) – I've been watching Wjrz/Lima's edits since their odd behavior on Talk:Kim Jong-un in April. They have not made promotional edits to mainspace articles. The "promotional block" was based on their original account name and the unfortunate wording on their user page, both of which have been rectified. They made a number of unsourced edits but eventually understood that they needed to include a citation with their edits and began doing so. After watching them submit unblock requests that got no response, I believe the repeated unblock requests might either have been done for fear they did it wrong so they tried again or frustration at nobody replying. Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been changed and your account unblocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note now you are unblocked, you are free to remove all of the content, including the accepted and declined unblock requests, from this page if you wish. You are not at all obligated to do so; you are free to leave them here if you prefer. --Yamla (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. For your expeditious work on List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, ensuring individuals added meet WP:ENDORSE. Thank you for your work, keep it up! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Copyright is a restriction put on a certain image or piece of information (logo, graph, etc. This can not be used on Wikipedia since we do not have permission to put it on there and Wikipedia is free to the public. Occasionally, a piece of information, such as a quote, a video file, or an image, which is copyrighted, can be used to show a clear point, following Wikipedia guidelines as well as those of the origin of the information. In the future, I will not use any copyrighted information. I usually stick with reverting edits and adding information with basic inline citations. At the time, I did not know I was breaking any policies, but now that I have read this article, I will be sure to not break this policy again. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked with consent of the blocking admin. Yamla (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: You are the blocking administrator. With the exception of how Wikipedia is licensed, LBF has hit all the high points here. I'm inclined to unblock, with a warning that essentially any further block would be the end but also with the hope there won't be any further problems related to non-free content. What do you think? --Yamla (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, I agree. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s great JJMC89, could either you or Yamla unblock me now? Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L

Spacing/dash

Hi Lima! Re this edit, and perhaps prior edits to said list, there's a space that you've been adding between the content and citation, for example: –2020)[space]<ref>. There should be no space between the content and citation, as this is consistent throughout Wikipedia. It should appear like this: –2020)<ref>.

Additionally, to conform with MOS:ENTO I've converted all of the dashes (-) to en dash, which is –. To locate this specific dash: 1. Look above the edit summary function, 2. press "Wiki markup" on the drop down list, 3. the en-dash is the first dash after "insert". Eg. So if we can turn this: (1986-2004) into → (1986–2004), that would be great!

You've been a real asset to Wikipedia, please keep up the great work! kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I don’t see an edit summary function. I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lima,

I'm referring to this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

This is a minor edit Watch this page

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Publish changes Show preview Show changes Cancel

Directly above it you'll see the "Insert"/"Wiki markup" drop down box. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I’m real sorry, but I don’t see any of that on my screen. I don’t see the “minor edit” box either. After I make an edit it comes to a page that says “how did you improve this page” and I can type in an edit summary. None of the other stuff is there. I’m not sure why. Should I ask at the tea house? I don’t want to inconvenience anyone with these improper dashes so I’d like to figure this out before we start editing again. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lima, no need to apologise! :)

You will only see the edit summary function box when you start editing an article. The "minor edit" box will appear directly under the edit summary box. Directly above the edit summary feature is a drop-down menu which lists a number of things, such as: "Wiki markup", "Insert", "Symbols", "Latin", "IPA", and so forth. If you press "wiki markup", next to the drop down menu will appear many different characters/codes that can be used in articles or talk pages, wherever really. The proper dash to use is the first dash shown (indeed, first character shown) once you press "Wiki markup".

Does that make sense? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I think you are using a different device which may have more features. For the future, I can copy the dash you added and paste it where I need it. Thank you so much for letting me know about that! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is very strange. I'll follow that up for you. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So Lima, I've reached out to someone who is evidently more switched on than I am :')

You're right, you don't have it. That's because it needs to be activated within your preferences. To do this, you go to "Preferences" (on top right of any Wikipedia page when logged in) → then press "Gadgets" → then, under the heading "Editing", tick the box that says next to it "CharInsert: add a toolbar under the edit window for quickly inserting wiki markup and special characters (troubles?)". Once you tick this box, go to the bottom of the page and hit "Save". And there you go! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I don’t have preferences in my top right hand screen. The only thing in the top right is a bell and a thing that lets me search articles. I’m sorry that this has been an inconvenience. I will copy and paste the dash you added or I won’t do this type of editing at all. Thank you for going through so much trouble. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's so strange. I don't know why that's the case. Either way, no need to apologise as this isn't your fault. Please continue editing where you please (especially that list, you do a great job). I'll fix the dashes here and there, no problem! kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelbourneStar☆^talk, I think it has to do with me using an iPhone to edit. I appreciate you spending so much time on this issue! Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I've never edited with my IPhone. I imagine that would be difficult! No worries, anytime. Likewise, happy editing! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important standard notices

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.

Template:Z33

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 articles about 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.

Template:Z33

--Neutrality^talk 22:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Your recent editing history at List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – bradv🍁 21:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, you can't claim WP:EDITCONSENSUS when other editors are actively contesting your edit. That implies that their opinions don't count. The right and honourable thing to do at this point would be to self-revert and discuss the matter on the talk page. – bradv🍁 21:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this in a little more detail, it is clear that you don't intend to listen to the other editors. You have completely misinterpreted the sources for these entries, as you have been told several times, yet you continue to reinsert the content claiming that you have consensus. Accordingly, I have blocked you from editing this article for a week, during which you are welcome to contribute to discussions on the article talk page. You may appeal this decision at WP:AN if you believe I have erred. – bradv🍁 21:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? Why did you do that? I have added the most edits to that page out of any editor. There is no consensus yet for this page and my edits have been up there for weeks. I have asked that the other editors use the talk page to come to a consensus before deletion. I have listened to the other editors and have even deleted a few edits based on the others’ comments. However, I have been willing to listen and have been debating on the talk page. So far, there is no consensus, but when one is reached, I will follow it. This is ridiculous that you banned me from editing the article which I have done so much work to improve. I have added hundreds of republicans who oppose Trump and am being banned over some five thirty eight article which covers like 10 people? This is ridiculous Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since your “warning” I have not made any further edits to the article. What type of warning is it if I still get punished for heeding it? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OWN. And since you made it clear on the talk page that you intend to continue reverting changes you don't like, I have blocked you to prevent further disruption to this article. But there are still 6 million other articles you can work on. – bradv🍁 22:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I own anything on Wikipedia. However, I made an extreme impact on this article so having me blocked from it is just a detriment to the article. I have helped with formatting, adding many of the 70 Biden endorsements. I didn’t say I will revert changes I don’t like. In fact, after hearing another editor’s opinion, I deleted a few of my own edits (a few think tanks and the federalist society) but when my edits have been on there for almost a month and then are deleted with no consensus (and an article stating they are never trumpers) this should be reverted until further consensus. I was happy to hear consensus but no one but myself ever actually tried debating the meaning of the article other than saying I have a loose interpretation of it. Please unblock me. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

In the past few hours since your block from editing List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign expired, you have gone right back to the same edit warring and article ownership issues that led to your previous block. In particular, you added Dawn Addiego twice, George W. Bush twice, and Charlie Crist 3 times, despite knowing that others disagreed with you, and without seeking consensus on the talk page.

Your partial block from editing this article is now set to indefinite. You may appeal this decision at the administrators' noticeboard. – bradv🍁 04:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bradv🍁, where are you getting the ownership of content thing? I never claimed ownership of content. As for Charlie Crist, I added him and Muboshgu deleted it saying he is not a Republican. I added it back (second time) with Dawn (for the first time) explaining that the reason for deletion was not valid, since they served in office as Republicans. When Muboshgu deleted it again, I did not immediately revert. Instead, I explained on the articles talk page, munoshgu’s talk page, and even your talk page that these fit the criteria and that Muboshgu’s deleting was not a valid reason. After many hours, I reverted it. As for Bush, I added it back only once and it was with a new source that clearly said oppose. After it was reverted, I continued a discussion on the talk page. I don’t see how this would be edit warring. For Bush I made one revert and then utilized the talk page. For Crist, I reverted once and then before doing it again I explained to the editor and included all the information to why the people listed belong on the article. I didn’t just keep reverting. In fact I actually waited. Don’t make me go through the unblock process again. All of my edits have been in good faith and not edit warring. With the amount of discussion I’ve done on the talk page I don’t know how this could be considered edit warring at all. Is there any advice you could give me or something I should know that would allow me to start editing again more productively? If I agree to something specific that would allow you to unblock me? If I really wanted to edit war, I’d just add back all of the senators and the people who we are discussing now. That’s not what happened. An editor reverted my edits as they didn’t fully understand the criteria and I reverted it. I then explained to them why they belong, waited a while, and then added it back. Should I have not added Crist back initially and first explained before adding him back the first time? If so, I would agree (and would do that in the future anyways). Regards Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support the block for the reasons given. You were clearly edit warring, and were effectively controlling the article against the opposition of others (and that's the WP:OWN bit, whether or not you actually claimed ownership). Edit warring is when you make a change, it is reverted, and you reinstate that change without getting a consensus for it. You don't just tell the other editor why they're wrong, or decide that it's simply because they don't understand, and then reinstate the change. You get a consensus. If the other editor responds and agrees you were right, you can reinstate the change. But if they disagree or they just do not respond after an arbitrary time, you can not. You seek a consensus. Are you getting the key word here? You ask for advice? How about working on something else, ideally something unrelated to the US presidential election for a while to help you step back and gain a better sense of perspective? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, fun username! I’m still not sure what part of WP:OWN I broke, so I think if I further understand this, that would help the eventual unblock (maybe?). I did not believe that what I was doing was edit warring. What I do understand now is that it should have been discussed before being added back and that was an unnecessary risk I shouldn’t have taken. Especially right after my block, with many admins keeping a close eye. I don’t know why I would stop editing on 2020 elections. I have made a lot of changes to both Biden and Trump endorsement pages as well as removing unsourced content. Not to mention all the additions I’ve made to house, senate, and gubernatorial races. I’m not asking to be unblocked just yet, I’d like clarification first on the article ownership thing. Then I’ll ask BradV for an unblock again. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I explained what I saw as the WP:OWN violation when I said you were "effectively controlling the article against the opposition of others". That is, *you* were making the decisions as to what the article contained, rather than having contested decisions made by consensus. And yes, you were clearly edit warring - reinstating a contested edit without consensus is pretty much the definition of edit warring. (Did you work out what the key word is yet?) As for why you might edit something else for a while, I already told you that too - and I'm not going to keep repeating myself, though that does seems to be necessary to get you to understand something. Anyway, it was just advice - it's up to you what you do with it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, please remain civil with me. I’m only trying to learn, not trying to harm the project in any way. I most definitely do appreciate any advice you can give to me. I have no idea what you mean with the key word thing. But let me clarify, this was considered ownership because I reverted almost all of the edits and added back what I believed was right. For mass edits like that I should have consensus first, right? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you have got the key word, you said it in your question! For *any* contested edit, not just mass edits, you should get a consensus. Consensus is possibly the most important key word at Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request (10 September 2020)

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello! I was blocked from this talk page for the reason of edit warring. I didn’t even know you can edit war on a talk page. I understand why I was blocked from the page itself, also edit warring. While at the time I didn’t realize that reverting once is edit warring, I now realize how to prevent this from happening (use the talk page first). I am currently asking that my block on the talk page be removed. Since this is my second block from that page, I see why I need to take a bit of a break from it, but I was discussing the meaning of the article (I started an rfc) and also have added people who fit the criteria on the talk page, which still have not been added (they fit the criteria, I added sources, and even have added what information can be given when they’re added to to the page). Please remove this block. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were not blocked from editing that talk page on account of edit warring; as such, I am declining this unblock request because it does not address the reasons for your (partial) block. $Salvio$ 15:02, 10 September 2020 (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.

Normally, the way to request an unblock would be to use the {{unblock}} template on your talk page, not posting here. But while we're here, I would decline the unblock request; based on your posts to the talk page, you still do not understand the scope of that article, so the block is still needed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bradv, who imposed the block (which I extended), did say "You may appeal this decision at the administrators' noticeboard". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little...harsh, given the whole Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community clause of the banning policy, although I guess I don't know how that clause interacts with partial blocks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: He didn't say "must appeal", so maybe he just meant it's an option because it's only a partial block? But I agree an appeal at AN is perhaps not the wisest move. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Bean Farmer, your block from that talk page is not remotely for edit warring, and I have no idea where you got that from. I clearly explained the reason for extending your block to cover that page at User talk:Lima Bean Farmer#Thesaurus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Boing! said Zebedee, when I click on details to my block, it says that I’m blocked from both pages for edit warring. Please remove this block. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is the original reason given by Bradv for your block from the article. I have explained clearly why I extended the block to cover the talk page too - but once again, you demonstrate an apparent inability to comprehend the simplest of things when they are painstakingly explained to you. I decline to lift the block. Also, I'm sorry to say so, but considering how talking to you is so much like talking to the wall, I'm really beginning to think you do not possess the competence to edit Wikipedia at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Boing! said Zebedee, I have been blocked for promotional editing, unsourced editing, copyright violations, and now most recently edit warring. Each of these previous blocks I have improved myself on (I learned how to source edits, I learned what copyright was, I learned what an unacceptable username was) and plan to do the same with edit warring, since I was unfamiliar that one revert was considered edit warring so I will improve on that once my block expires (I believe in a week). However, I have expressed my opinion on this talk page and somehow have been blocked because I added my opinion and a link to a thesaurus which somehow violated Wikipedia:SYNTH. Expressing my opinion on the inclusion of a certain person is not a reason to block someone, in fact I started an rfc to discuss this article. I have commented on individual people too and have added people on the talk page which for some reason you refuse to add. I’ve been friendly with you since you blocked me so I’m not sure why you’re being so harsh on me. I know you think that for inclusion on this page, one must say “I am opposed to the Donald Trump 2020 campaign” but I think this is too harsh of a standard. Using the talk page to express my opinion was the only way I was able to do it and you have now blocked me from this. Once again, I ask you to please remove this block. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - And once again, NO! I will not remove the block. DO NOT ASK ME AGAIN. And if you refuse to accept that Wikipedia requires a reliable source explicitly stating someone's political position and that you are not allowed to deduce it for yourself from other things they have said (as has now been explained to you countless times), then nobody else will unblock you either! The requirement for a source that explicitly states someone's political opinion before we can include it in Wikipedia is not negotiable, and nobody cares if you think it harsh. Finally, no, your block does not expire in a week, it is indefinite. You can tell that because it says "with an expiration time of indefinite", and because Bradv said "Your partial block from editing this article is now set to indefinite" right here on this very talk page, in the same message that told you "You may appeal this decision at the administrators' noticeboard". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unsolicited advice you can ignore if you wish: Lima Bean Farmer, just some unsolicited advice you can ignore, but it is offered with nothing but goodwill. I know there are some topics/articles I should generally stay away from due to various reasons. Some subjects I'm just to close to, others I'm just hopelessly out of step with the consensus. It doesn't matter how right I think I am, editing there is asking for problems. Regardless of the reason, I know its best for me to stay away from them because editing there will only create grief. Even if I win an argument, I know it won't end up a net positive. There are plenty of areas on Wikipedia I can edit without problems and grief. Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 14:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of New Jersey League of Conservation Voters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Jersey League of Conservation Voters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey League of Conservation Voters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock please

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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me from the list of Republicans who oppose Trump. I have agreed not to edit war, only make additions which fit the criteria and it’s been over two weeks now. Don’t bother contacting the blocking editor, he already said he wouldn’t get involved. Thank you!Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I was sympathetic with you until I read your attacks on a very patient Boing! said Zebedee, who has tried to help you(and has no knowledge of how your iPhone is configured). As noted, edit warring is only part of the issue here. You haven't done as requested and agreed to use explicit citations for claims of support; as such, the block remains valid and I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2020 (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.

- 331dot, Boing! said Zebedee has not been as patient as you may believe. First, they make an objection to my block and then are not explicit as to what the block was for. I don’t blame them for knowing my iPhone doesn’t show green. However they were unwilling to help or give me a better explanation even after I explained the green thing. Then they asked me to agree to something which I did, and put a condensed version above, but that wasn’t enough for them. I think they are still bitter about some of the disputes we had in the past even though I attempted to move on. Maybe you can give some guidance. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You attacked me in the very same message as you told me your phone did not show the green - you gave me no time at all to offer any further explanation before you started your attacks. You appear to have some sort of comprehension problem which makes it hard for you to understand what most editors understand easily, and you appear to need things explained to you multiple times in very simple terms. I'm willing to go along with that and do the best I can to explain, but I will not do so when you attack me for your comprehension inabilities. Now, if you think everyone else here is wrong and only you are right, make a new unblock request and another admin will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have nothing to add beyond what I have said, and I stand by my review. As noted, you are free to attempt to convince another administrator of your claims. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - 331dot, what would you like? I have agreed to use specific citations and be much more careful on additions to the article. Would you like me to be nicer to Boing! said Zebedee? They weren’t that nice to me, but I can try being nice again and hope they follow suit. Please give guidanceLima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Please request unblock for another administrator to review; I have no further comment. Thank you 331dot (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Boing! said Zebedee, that was after you attacked me for everything being perfectly laid out but I didn’t see it. If you told me to put that I would be more careful on additions in the box then I would have done that in the beginning. I also covered it very well in my conversation with you. I thought you understood I was going to work on that as well. You clearly did not and decided to stop helping me and have now attacked my comprehension. Why are you trying to ruin this for me? I added the part you asked me to above and you still won’t remove your opposition. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not attack you in any way, shape, or form. If you do not think I am competent as an admin, feel free to start a discussion at WP:AN - and if there's a consensus agreeing with you, I will resign. Other that that, I don't want to have any more to do with you and will remove this talk page from my watch list. Do not ping me again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, don't worry about the pings - I've set my notification preferences to ignore them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Do not post at my talk page (unless required to by policy). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
      - I have restored your comment and replied (it's better for the record, I think), and I now see no need for any further interaction between us on this subject. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Boing! said Zebedee, agreed. I hope we can work together on other projects in the future. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained to you multiple times, the problem is not just edit warring. Here's what I said on my talk page recently: But remember, my extension of your block to cover the talk page was not for edit warring. We need to see no more of you making your own deductions about someone's support or opposition based on anything other than a very clear statement in a reliable source. So no more "He hasn't supported, so he must oppose" stuff, you understand? Remember my words from your talk page: "The requirement for a source that explicitly states someone's political opinion before we can include it in Wikipedia is not negotiable". I oppose any unblock until you stop ignoring that problem, and actually address it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Boing! said Zebedee, I have left a very nice message on your talk page letting you know my future intentions as well as apologizing. While I can try to use my own reasoning to see what opposition is based on the current consensus (use of word oppose, endorse another candidate, etc.), I can not promise that all of my edits will not be reverted. That’s why I promise to use my own judgement based on consensus and if anything is further challenged I will use the talk page to discuss. No one has even reviewed my unblock and you’re already trying to ruin it. I’ve given it quite some time and thought, as well as apologizing and explaining my intentions to all other editors involved. Please don’t try to ruin this for me, deal? If you didn’t block me from the talk page I wouldn’t have to go through all of this. But now I do, so don’t ruin it. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, I'm not trying to ruin anything, I'm merely trying to protect Wikipedia and uphold policy. I'm only interested in what's best for Wikipedia, not what's best for you. On my talk page, you apologized for edit warring but said nothing whatsoever about the underlying problem, which was your approach of repeatedly making your own deductions based on inadequate sources in violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. While you refuse to commit to not using your own judgment of someone's support/oppose position and instead use only what reliable sources say explicitly, you should not edit that article. It is that simple. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Boing! said Zebedee, “ While you refuse to commit to not using your own judgment of someone's support/oppose position and instead use only what reliable sources say explicitly, you should not edit that article,” what the heck is that supposed to mean. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - That you don't understand what that means is part of the problem. I've explained the problem as clearly as I can (multiple times in different places and apparently without success). I'll leave it to the reviewing admin to decide on the best course of action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Boing! said Zebedee, you are not being clear. I have agreed to not edit war and use better judgment (based on consensus) of what should and should not be added to this article. If there is something else you would like me to do, then please tell me. What point are you trying to get across that I am missing multiple times? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It's explicitly clear in the green comment above. If you can not understand that, then there's no further help I can give. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Boing! said Zebedee, is “The requirement for a source that explicitly states someone's political opinion before we can include it in Wikipedia is not negotiable” what you’re referring to? I edit on an iPhone and nothing above appears green. How did you become an administrator if you’re not even willing to help out another editor? I was hoping for an apology and then a fresh start but since I’ve tried for an unblock you’ve been very hostile towards me. I have agreed to only make additions that fit the criteria (reliable source, clearly opposition based on the consensus of what opposition is, etc). Do you want me to promise that all my edits will be perfect? I can’t promise someone won’t have an issue with them but I have agreed not to edit war and use the talk page. You are really just trying to ruin this, aren’t you? That page has practically been abandoned. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll put aside your comments questioning my suitability as an admin - nobody reading the entirety of this talk page can possibly think I have been unwilling to help! I have not previously seen any commitment from you to "to only make additions that fit the criteria" - it's possible that I might have missed it somewhere, but it needs to be in your unblock request. If you modify your unblock request to include a clear commitment to only use clear reliable sources, to be careful to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and to seek prior consensus if there is any ambiguity, then I will withdraw my opposition to your unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        This is an improvement, but I still see no commitment to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and to seek prior consensus if there is any ambiguity. If you add those, I will withdraw my opposition to your request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block reason

As an aside, as you keep responding as if your block is only for edit warring, I have amended the block reason. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Boing! said Zebedee, you’re adding new blocks?!? I haven’t even edited that page in weeks! I am clearly trying to understand what you’re asking from me and you won’t tell me. This is an impossible situation for me. I don’t know how you’re an admin when a user is trying to improve and you don’t help them, just impose additional blocks. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have *not* added a new block, I have simply amended the block reason (as I said clearly in the block log, and as I just explained here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Boing! said Zebedee, you have been unwilling to help. I have explained to you at least 3 different times that I will be more careful about my additions, only add based on what the criteria is, and I will follow the consensus on the definition of oppose. You could’ve easily said that you didn’t see that, but no. You rather would have been difficult and claim something was in green (which it isn’t on my screen) and say you weren’t going to help on something when you were the one that didn’t explain it properly, plus I already addressed this. This also doesn’t explain your hostility towards me when I have been respectful and apologetic to you up until 2 posts ago. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Boing! said Zebedee, ”Hello Boing! Said Zeebee! I just wanted to let you know that I have reached out to Brad v for a potential unblock on the article Republicans who oppose Trump re election. If I do get my editing privileges back, I wanted to make sure you knew that I apologize for edit warring and will do whatever I can to stop it from happening again. I’ve been making tons of edits in the past few weeks and avoided any edit wars. Even if I don’t get it back, a formal apology is still in order. Thank you for your time and happy editing!” is the message I left on your page. I have been friendly and apologetic. Maybe you forgot or you just don’t care and this is always how you handle other editors. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Being friendly and apologetic is not sufficient. For me to support an unblock, I need to be convinced that you properly understand the problems that led to your block (and to my extension of the block to cover the talk page) and that they will not recur. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock please

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).

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

Request reason:

All reasons stated above, in addition to my agreement “to use explicit citations for claims of support”. I will follow wikipedia:SYNTH and wikipedia:OR when editing to the best of my abilities. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as there's another active unblock request later on this page. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2020 (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.

Whoever reviews this is free to judge it as they see fit without needing to consult me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be helpful if you were to list the changes you want to make to List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign, as that is the page you are asking to edit. Please be specific. – bradv🍁 19:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- bradv🍁, why? I don’t want just a few additions that no one will even make (check the talk page of the article, there are still additions I have posted that no one has made). I want to have editing access to the article again. I’ve waited almost a month, apologized to the other editors, and explained what I’ll do differently already. I think I deserve a full unblock, not just a couple of edits. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Anyone considering unblocking you is going to want to know that doing so is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. If your proposed contributions are clearly improvements it's much easier for that case to be made. All we have to go by at the moment is your history with that article. – bradv🍁 19:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - bradv🍁 Ok, well I am going to add Charlie Crist who is a US representative and served as Governor of Florida as a Republican based on [1]. I will add Robert Zoellick based on [2]. I hope that after asking me to show examples, you consider an unblock yourself. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements of Biden are not explicit statements of opposition to Trump. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, “ Republicans who endorsed a different candidate” is explicitly stated on the page as a criteria for addition. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I stand corrected- though I'm not certain I agree with that criteria(which is, of course, irrelevant to this matter). Thank you 331dot (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC) UTC)[reply]

So 331dot, will you consider an unblock? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave it to Bradv to decide. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, Bradv already said he wouldn’t unblock me. Could you please? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where they have said they wouldn't unblock you ever, only that they wouldn't unblock you based on the information you had provided to that point. I don't speak for Bradv, but I'm pretty sure that's a fair description. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Crist is a Democrat, which is clearly stated multiple times in that source. – bradv🍁 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bradv🍁, it says “ those who held office as a Republican” and Crist held 4 public positions including governor of Florida as a Republican. Please read the page before claiming that I am wrong. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, here is the message Brad v posted on his talk page about not unblocking me “Lima Bean Farmer, we've been through this before. Although I'm glad you are apologetic, I'm still not convinced that unblocking you won't result in further disruption. But because I was the one who placed the block, I will leave it to another admin to review. Please place an {{unblock}} request on your talk page and someone will be by shortly.” I kindly ask that you please review my unblock or have a fellow administrator review it as Brad v has made it clear that he will not. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that your source for Charlie Crist is talking about who he's endorsing in the Democratic primary, not the actual Presidential race--he's been a Democrat for 8 years now--I don't think he's at all relevant enough as a Republican to be included in the list of Republicans opposed to Trump. While you're staying within the strict letter of the law, I don't think you're exercising good judgment on this article; you seem far too eager to push as many names in there as possible. I'm inclined to decline this request. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writ Keeper ⚇♔, you’re declining my request because I want to make additions that fit the article and you personally don’t believe they belong despite it fitting within the criteria? If you disagree with the criteria, that’s one thing, but don’t keep me blocked because I am editing to the criteria which you do not like. This is not about your personal opinion. This is about my proposed additions which conform to the article’s standards. Please unblock Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't declined it, and out of courtesy to you, since you're questioning my motives, I won't. I don't think my motives are out of line or that I'm anything like involved, but I can step aside to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I will not unblock you based on this, though.

Anyway, the problem is not that you want to put people on the list that I don't want on there; I don't care the slightest bit about the list or who's on it. I was honestly surprised to find that Wikipedia even has such a list. The problem is the pattern. You have a pattern of pushing for inclusion of people who are borderline at best, pushing that envelope, and arguing incessantly with people who disagree with you. That's what led to the block. When I look at the examples you gave to convince us that this pattern won't repeat, I would have expected them to be completely straightforward, obvious examples, that would show you're committing to breaking this cycle of controversy. This is not that. And then you continue arguing it, just as you have before. The pattern hasn't changed, so to me it looks like the block is still necessary. The whole point of blocks and unblcoks is to minimize disruption to Wikipedia, and it looks to me like unblocking you would not minimize disruption; it looks like we'd be back at this cycle of neverending talk page disputes again pretty much immediately. That's the only reason I'm not unblocking you.

Honestly, I don't know why this one page is this important to you. Like, I completely get your frustration that you're blocked, but this is the only page on the literally millions of pages on Wikipedia that you can't edit. And believe me, I know how polarizing this election is, but this seems like such a...trivial part of it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writ Keeper ⚇♔, but they are both examples that fit the inclusion. The reason I was blocked was for not following the criteria, not for arguing. The additions I suggested here follow the criteria. Currently there are many people who fit this criteria and belong on this list and no one has added them. If you really didn’t care who is on this list, then you’d unblock me and leave it between me and others who care about the article have a debate on content on the talk page. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, but you might not wish to thank me until you've read my proposal below. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock please

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Ok, I want to be unblocked from List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign and it’s talk page. Here, I will address the block and everyone’s concerns they have had with it. First, I was blocked due to edit warring. How will this improve? I just won’t edit war. There’s not really much I can do here to prove that. However, if one of my edits is reverted, I will use the talk page if a discussion needs to occur. If an argument is getting really heated, I will step back from it for a little while. If it doesn’t seem like a consensus is coming together, there is always Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Next up is Wikipedia:No original research. I think this was mainly due to me adding things that say “don’t support” or “won’t endorse” as oppose, which obviously I will not do anymore. As a bigger picture I will make sure additions of living persons are explicit and if I think there might be some controversy, I will discuss the addition on the talk page before I make it. As for wikipedia:SYNTH, same reasons as above. I never really used more than one article to prove a point but I will keep that in mind for the future as well and make sure I don’t do that. As for the blocking administrators, they have stated that they would not get involved in the issue again for any reason, so there is no need to ask them (or you can if you’d like to confirm that they have no objections). The admin who rejected my first unblock request also said they would not get involved again. I have been asked to provide examples which I have above. Here are some more though. Carey Hart, based on this article [3] Amanda Carpenter, based on [4] Susan Del Percio, based on [5] As well as others as they come up. This however shows an array of additions I will add to contribute to this article. Is there something I’m missing? Please let me know. The election is in less than 3 weeks so please don’t say “wait 6 months” because that would be meaningless. I have already waited over a month and made very useful contributions since. To be clear, these were on articles about both living persons and elections such as endorsement articles, which are very similar to this one. I have not been blocked or had any other major issues. Also, please don’t say “there are plenty of other articles to edit.” If there is something else that you would like me to understand/show/say, I’d be happy to do it, but I think I have demonstrated enough competency to edit this article. Please help out! Thank you for your time! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per discussion below, for talkpage access only. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you wait at least three weeks because you are clearly all wound up about the election. This article will presumably be here for a very long time, and you can work to improve it dispassionately once the election is over. Please do not bring this type of thing to the Teahouse, which is a place to ask and answer questions about basic editing procedures. It is not a venue for lobbying to get your block on one article lifted. Go edit some uncontroversial articles for a while. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, I must agree that I was wound up about the election. However, I haven’t edited this article in over a month and a half and have been editing other pages about this election without any controversy. After a break, I decided to apply to get unblocked, which is what I’m doing now. If you think I’m just ranting because I’m wound up, that’s not true. I’m just addressing all of the issues that were brought up so that there wouldn’t be any controversy on an unblock. I didn’t say that the article is going to go away, but only being able to edit it after the election doesn’t seem that helpful either. No one has even made a significant contribution (other than a photo) in 3 days. I hope you will reconsider, thank you for your time! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I saw your post at the Teahouse and instead of commenting there, I thought it would be better to post my thoughts here. I know you posted Also, please don’t say “there are plenty of other articles to edit.” above, but there are over six million other articles on Wikipedia and many need improving; so, it's not so clear why it's an absolute imperative for you to be able to edit this particular article at the moment. This is more of a mini-WP:TOPICBAN than a full-fledged WP:BLOCK and it will be lifted in due course once the community feels things have settled down; at the same time, even an unintentional slip up on your part may led to your account actually being blocked from editing any articles. Perhaps an administrator would be willing to let you use the article's talk to make WP:EDITREQUESTs so that you can show them that you've learned from your mistakes and don't intend to repeat them. In other words, you agree for some certain period of time to not directly edit the article, but rather only to make constructive edit requests or contributions on its talk page. Anything else will lead to either an immediate restoration of the topic ban or even a block. Would that be a workable option for you? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, no one is giving any options to me. I can’t make requests on the talk page or edit the article or anything to do with it. Even when I could edit the talk page I made requests which were never fulfilled or rejected (you can still see them under title “New Opposition”). It’s clear that I am being ignored. I am intent on editing this article because I genuinely have the means to edit it, but no one’s given me a chance for over a month. I have been very patient with everyone’s suggestions on things I should address and examples I should give and I’m still willing to do that if there’s something I should add. I just want this block to be lifted already Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is unlikely that any administrator will lift this block before the election. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, why? What could I do or show you to make you see that I am competent enough to edit this article? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can continue this conversation in three weeks. Your determination to edit this article now indicates to me that you are motivated by a desire to somehow influence the election. If that is not the case, you should be happy to have the chance to edit the article after the election is over. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, influence the election? I don’t even edit Wikipedia with a computer, I don’t know how I’d influence an election in the second largest democracy in the world. I am just intent on the proper information being added to this page which is not. Everyone is so intent on blocking me yet they have never edited this page and I have made dozens if not over a hundred additions with maybe 6 that were improper and deleted. And don’t say “you’re claiming ownership” because I most certainly am not. There is something to be said though, when an editor makes many contributions to an article and is blocked and the article becomes almost ignored. Can’t you see the additions I suggest above? I’m clearly not trying to maliciously add names to influence an election. I had to laugh typing that because it’s crazy that this is where the conversation has turned. So, once again, I will ask, very directly, what more can I do to show you and the Wikipedia community to show you that I am ready to edit this article again? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Cullen328, especially since LBF is also continually adding dozens of entries sourced to blogs, campaign affiliated sites and the like to List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is drop the stick, move on, work on other articles, and wait until after the election is over. Please do not contact me again until November 4 at the earliest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, this is what I’ve done for the past month and a half. Why would you not even consider unblocking me from the talk page? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Bean Farmer, do not ping me again or contact me in any way until November 4. I hope that's clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)LBF, you're beating a dead horse. I can understand where you're coming from, and maybe an admin will eventually grant you access to the article talk page, but it's not something you can pressure them into doing. Zindor (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lima Bean Farmer! The commitment not to edit war is noted, thank you. Am not as convinced re OR/SYNTH, especially in the heat of an election campaign where reliable sourcing can become submerged in claim and counterclaim. Would you formally agree to a restriction like that suggested by Marchjuly, to propose edits to this article using editrequest on its talkpage? This would give an opportunity for neutral third-party review before they go live. If not I understand: edit requests can be irritatingly slow to get actioned. However, without something like this the risk of further OR/SYNTH issues seems a bit high, and from an abundance of caution a general unblock is more likely to come through on the day after election day. Let me know what you think - if you decline this suggestion and would like an unblock on the day after the election, ping me to remind me and I'll do it as soon as the polls close.

And in passing (just in case it needs saying) I'm not an American and don't really care who wins. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've just read upwards to discover that Bradv directed appeal requests to WP:AN. If you agree to the above restriction I'd be happy to propose it at AN for you. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, thank you so much for spending so much time on my case! Yes, I most definitely would agree to this case. While I am an American (not an eligible voter) and do care about who wins the election, I try to keep the edits I make on Wikipedia unbiased. I have contributed to pages about both Joe Biden and Donald Trump and even some edits to Jo Jorgensen and Howie Hawkins. That’s why it bothers me that no one has been updating this article on a regular basis. Once again, I appreciate that you have been spending so much time on this! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, an unblock template is fine too. It was pointed out at AN that if the request gets declined, this would turn into a community ban – and that was not my intent when directing them to AN. – bradv🍁 04:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bradv, and hi Lima Bean Farmer. No worries re time; I'm supposed to be studying so coming here was an excuse to put the pen down. Never heard of the people you mention above so I had to look them up - if you've got spare time the Howie Hawkins article seems in serious need of a copyedit. On topic, and just to spell it out in full for the formality of it: In the spirit of (say) Halloween, I'm happy to do an unblock for "List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign" the basis that:

you post suggested edits and relevant source links to the talkpage as you've done in the past, so that other editors can review the proposed addition and make the edit directly, rather than you editing the article itself; and
you satisfy yourself on the difference between "opposed to" and "spoke out against," as one doesn't necessarily follow the other in the context of the article.

On point 1 you might also get faster attention to these suggested edits if you use the editrequest template. But up to you. If you agree to this, the entire elaborate construct will also expire on the day after the US election day and become just a regular unblock. Let me know what you think. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Euryalus and bradv! I am not necessarily sure I completely understand what you’re proposing but I appreciate it no matter what. The part with the definition of oppose I completely understand and agree to. What I am not sure is if you’re planning on unblocking me from the talk page now or after the election. Could you please specify? Thank you. And good luck with your studies Euraylus! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unblocking from the talkpage now, so you can post suggested edits (and associated sources) there for others to review. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, of course I’d agree to that! And yes, I promise everything will be sourced and conform to the definition of “oppose”. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, then. Kept the block on the article but removed for talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, thank you so much for taking the time to review! Happy editing Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Lima Bean Farmer: Now that you've been given a second chance, please try to make the most of it. Understand that whatever you post on that talk page is almost certainly going to be highly scrutinized. This might not seem fair, but it is what it is. Any edit requests you make might take some time for others to respond to (I suggest you read through WP:ER to understand what makes a good edit request.), but you need to allow the process time to work and understand that those answering edit requests are volunteers like you and they're not going to bother trying to help you if stray too far outside the lines and make things difficult for them. So, be patient and try to keep WP:COOL when you post. Bascially, you've been given some WP:ROPE; if you repeat the same mistakes as before, the community response is likely not going to be very forgiving. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marchjuly, that's good advice. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lima Bean Farmer. Further to the above, the additions at List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements do resemble the ones for which you were previously partially blocked: lots of sourcing to blogs, sites like Medium.com. As such they're fairly obvious breaches of WP:ENDORSE. Appreciate you've posted an RfC on the topic of independent sourcing there, but at least for now the wording of that content guideline stands. This plus the hyper-importance of WP:BLP, make the edits unsupportable. Regardless of how the ANI thread works out you really need to adhere to the sourcing requirements per the content guidelines stand. If you can't/don't want to do this fine, but you'll end up either topic banned or simply blocked from editing.

The ANI thread would be a good place to respond when you have the chance. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

3 month topic ban from post-1932 American politics

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at AP2#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. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a topic ban means

A topic ban means that you are forbidden from discussing the topic, anywhere on Wikipedia, while the ban is in force. The only exception is to discuss specifics of the ban itself through the appeals process noted above, which must not include attempts to influence content. Topic bans are broadly construed. Posting suggested additions here, or anywhere else, will be interpreted as a violation of the ban.

It's not my first choice (I advocated a mainspace only ban) but it's what's in place, so you need to successfully appeal it before making any comments about endorsements anywhere including on this page - otherwise you may be blocked form editing. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe LBF's edits to Silver State Equality (Nevada) were in violation of the topic ban. LBF, I'm not imposing an additional block because perhaps you did not understand what a topic ban means. Now that Guy has explained it, you do. --Yamla (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would also apply to these edits, which I have removed. --Yamla (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I can’t edit talk pages now? This is too extreme. And Yamla, that was an lgbtq+ organization. I can’t create pages anymore? I thought by suggesting at talk payer and creating new articles I would be potentially unbanned. This is just too extreme. If I can’t get this ban lifted I will probably just quit Wikipedia. Are you happy Guy? That rfc and all of my edits bothered you that much? Since I stopped editing that page, the wiki has been broken and new names are being contributed to youtube. Would it have hurt you to come to my talk page and say “hey lbf, you’re using poor sources, discuss on the talk page before adding”? I think some users who have the right to ban/block use it too quickly. You didn’t even let me say anything before proposing a ban at the noticeboard and letting it go through. And now I’m offering in exchange for getting unbanned, I will discuss every person’s source before adding them as an endorsement. Is that still not good enough for you? I mean that seems as credible as it gets and if I violated that, I think it would be pretty clear that a block would be in place for a very long time. I don’t get what else I can do. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If is has anything to do with post-1932 American politics you can’t edit talk pages about it. You can make comments and reply to comments as long as they have absolutely nothing to do with post-1932 American politics.

If the page has anything to do with post-1932 American politics you can’t create pages anymore. You can create pages as long as they have absolutely nothing to do with post-1932 American politics.

While we would all prefer that you learn to edit productively in other areas, I you need to leave Wikipedia because you are no longer allowed to edit on the topic of post-1932 American politics, broadly construed, then do what you feel you have to do. We all wish you well with wherever your life takes you. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "They help elect both statewide and federal officials". That is unambiguously about American politics. Note that Guy did not place the topic ban on you (nor did I), we are just helping you understand. --Yamla (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Bean Farmer, the safest thing is to always assume that if there is any possibility of doubt, then don't edit. The topic ban is broad: any people, events or things connected to post-1932 American Politics. It's broader than I'd have chosen but it is what it is. And it applies everywhere, including user talk pages, even your own user talk page. Sorry, that's just Wikipedia does this. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, good to know. Well if you disagree with the broadness of my ban then why don’t you tell the user who imposed it on me? I’m not dead set on editing the Biden endorsement article again but any politics after 1932?? That means I can’t create pages about advocacy websites or even make pages on places that I think are interesting because they are known for world war 2. And for whoever suggested I edit New Zealand’s elections, just no. It’s absolutely nothing like American elections and I wouldn’t have enough personal knowledge to edit it. Once again I have offered to provide a source and have a reliable user check it before adding a person’s endorsement. Isn’t that good enough? What’s the most harm I can do from that? And if I break that agreement then I think a long sitewide block is pretty clear. Agree? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Bean Farmer, ban appeals, by common agreement, need to come from the person affected. My advice to you would be to appeal at WP:AN and ask for the ban to be narrowed to mainspace only, which I would support because it fixes the core problem of your lack of proper understanding of WP:RS. But you have to roll the dice. Point being, any appeal that rejects the basis of the restriction, usually fails, An appeal that acknowledges fault and proposes a way of minimising disruption, will often succeed. Just my $0.02. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, could you clarify what you mean by main space? Thank you for your time Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Main space" means the actual articles themselves. "Talk space" means all the talk pages, etc Leijurv (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you seemed like you wanted to help me. Why are you now opposing my unban on the noticeboard? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have only listened to

"My advice to you would be to appeal at WP:AN and ask for the ban to be narrowed to mainspace only, which I would support because it fixes the core problem of your lack of proper understanding of WP:RS."

but are choosing to ignore

"Point being, any appeal that rejects the basis of the restriction, usually fails, An appeal that acknowledges fault and proposes a way of minimising disruption, will often succeed."

Your appeal completely failed to address the reason for your topic ban or present a reasonable plan for it not happening again.

Besides Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lima Bean Farmer, this entire page is full of attempts to explain to you what you are doing wrong, and you either don't undersand them or refuse tio accept them.

I suggest that you try again in a month, with an appeal that shows that you understand why so many people are upset with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Well Guy Macon , maybe you could help me. I made an addition to my appeal. Do you think this covers what I need to know to “acknowledge fault and propose a way of minimising disruption”? If not could you help me find a good way to word this and add it to my appeal? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My close of Wikipedia_talk:Political_endorsements#Rfc_on_part_2

Hello, Lima Bean Farmer. I wanted to drop a note here to further explain the close rationale I left on your RfC. I can see from your talk page that your restrictions on editing are frustrating and to have your RfC closed summarily may feel infuriating. It would be wrong of me to possibly contribute to a negative editing experience without explanation. Simply put, I closed it because it is not an RfC that can practically affect the project. I specifically called it "pointless" in my closing statement. That doesn't mean "pointless" in the normal sense approximately equivalent to "worthless" but in line with the WP:POINT guideline. There just isn't a way for this RfC to have an impact on the project and it was on that narrow basis I closed it early. I recognize this is not the result you were looking for but it is the result least likely to lead to disruption. If you have any questions about my reasoning, please do not hesitate to ask. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, no worries! I’m not allowed to discuss politics currently and since I was the only one advocating, this was the right move. This subject will most likely come up again, but until then, happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Don't change your talk page posts after they have been replied to. That makes it appear that editors have replied to something other than what was actually there. If you wish to change something then strike it out and make it clear that your change was added afterwards. Meters (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, sorry! I committed this again (I didn’t see your post). How do strike something out? Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TALK#REPLIED Meters (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add new sections to previous comments that have been replied to.. What you did is not appropriate. Meters (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But Meters, how should I make a new comment? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the link? It tells you how to change or retract a comment you have made.

If you want to add a new comment just add a new section at the bottom of the thread. Do not add a new section to a previous comment that has been replied to. You added two new sections under the original time stamp, after your post had been replied to by multiple editors. This is very confusing. It suggests that editors have replied to your new comments when actually they may not even see them. Meters (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, I did not see that part. That is completely true, thank you for taking the time to let me know! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the help?

Guy, where was the help? You said that you’d support the unban on main space pages and then you immediately said you opposed it when I brought it up. Then I added how I wouldn’t make the same mistakes again. And then that was it, no comment. You said that you would support minimizing a ban to just main space and that is definitely not what you did. I was very disappointed by this Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've see your user talk page comments where you criticize editors for not coming to your assistance but I don't see anywhere in these words an acknowledgment that you know why an admin placed this block on you despite multiple people saying that you were using subpar sources. Instead of blaming other editors, take this all as constructive criticism and agree to never use these types of sources again. That's what an admin wants to hear instead of denials that you've done nothing wrong. This block isn't to punish you but to protect Wikipedia articles. Listen to what editors and admins are telling you and make sure you don't make these mistakes again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I understand that the block was put in place due to the independent sources and unreliable sources, and I know I was banned for this, and I have agreed not to add them again. I’m also not blaming other editors (not sure why I’d do this) nor am I saying I did nothing wrong. I’ve understood what I’ve done wrong and would have rather resolved it without admin attention, but it’s clearly too late for that. All I’m asking is for the ban to be main space only. That way there is absolutely no way I can disrupt the project and in case I do make a mistake, an editor will catch it before it is added to the page. Then, when I’m allowed to edit main space again, I will have better knowledge of what to and not to add (not that I don’t right now, but clearly no one will allow me to edit main space). Thoughts? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that you cannot edit main space, you are incorrect. There are about six million articles that you are welcome to edit. You just need to stay away from post-1932 U.S. politics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸, most of my edits are based on the news. I’m actually kind of scared to edit anything because it could somehow be misconstrued as politics after 1932. Like that lgbtq club article I made, or just the suggestions at the talk pages. Could you please explain to me the reason why other admins are so resistant to letting me simply use talk pages? I’ve found the resistance to talk page privileges confusing. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"All I’m asking is for the ban to be main space only. That way there is absolutely no way I can disrupt the project" It is certainly possible to edit disruptively on article talk pages. In fact, it's only a few weeks since you were blocked from a talk page for disruptive editing there (it looks like you never acknowledged that, and did not quite seem to ever really understand it either). And reading the various threads you have posted on multiple user talk pages, as well as on admin boards, it does not look likely that any admin would consider it a good idea to decrease your ban – it's clear that you don't understand what the problem is, to the point that you repeatedly fall into the same patterns of habit that caused the ban in the first place, even though multiple editors have spent a lot of time explaining the issues. That is time that would be better spent on improving the encyclopedia – so you have the chance to do that now, instead of beating this dead horse. --bonadea contributions talk 19:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bonadea, I do understand why I was blocked from the talk page, I kept claiming “not support” was “oppose” which was a violation of biographies of living persons which is not acceptable, even on talk pages. If you give me talk page privilege, I will use it only to suggest ways to improve articles and throw my own two cents in on rfcs or disputes, I promise not to violate any blp rules, and will ask for confirmation/consensus on anything that I’m unsure about (from a reliable editor). I know you think this is a dead horse, but if you were appealing to me on not being allowed to edit all the pages you edit, I think you probably would do the same. Please use perspective and have a little sympathy for me, I’m just trying to help improve the encyclopedia. If I wasn’t trying to do that, I wouldn’t be spending so much time appealing. Also I’d be uncivil and edit war, and use a sockpuppet to edit. But I know that would all get me in trouble, and I’m here to stay, so I don’t do that. I just ask to be able to add suggestions at talk pages Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unlikely any administrator is going to look at an AN discussion one day ago in which multiple admins were unanimously against loosening your restrictions, and make a unilateral decision to loosen them anyway. I've said it before and I won't bother repeating myself again after this, but you'd make a lot more progress if you just tried to take the advice you were given rather than insisting upon something that was already firmly decided against yesterday. Just because most of your edits have been based on the news does not mean they have to continue to be, or you could focus on articles that are related to non-political news. A quick browse of The Washington Post shows:

Or you could try any of my random suggestions from yesterday. It concerns me that you can't see that writing about a contemporary American organization pushing for political change was too close to the line. You yourself wrote that the group "help[s] elect both statewide and federal officials". It is not hard to avoid the topic area, and your claim that some of the suggestions from yesterday "could somehow be misconstrued as politics after 1932" does not hold water. You would have to try pretty damn hard to somehow make an edit to Enneapterygius howensis that overlapped with post-1932 American politics, I think. If you don't want to edit outside of the topic area, fine, no one is forcing you. But to claim that you can't is absurd—you are by no means the first person to earn a topic ban in that area (Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#American politics 2), and at a glance it appears many of them are still actively editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, I appreciate it. I will continue editing, but I also want to work on my case for when the opportunity comes to get my ban loosened (obviously not today, hopefully within the week), I want to have the argument prepared and have admins understand I know before I go back to the noticeboard that I won’t cause any trouble if I am allowed on talk pages. Do you agree this is a better strategy? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to demonstrate you can edit productively outside of the topic area for a period of time longer than a week. I would suggest a month at minimum. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, I would agree for a full unban, but I’m only asking for talk page access. I don’t think getting to edit talk pages in a week should be that much of a problem. If you have reason to oppose, please let me know. I appreciate the advice! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to have a restriction loosened the day after it was implemented, and even after it was SNOW closed you've continued to lobby for the change to be made. As far as I can tell you've not even tried to take a shred of advice that multiple users have been kind enough to give to you, and it looks like this will be just another piece of advice thrown in the discard pile. It's highly unlikely a topic ban would ever be loosened one day after it was placed, and it's similarly unlikely that such a request would be granted only one week after it was just denied. Doing things like continuing to ask individual admins to loosen the restriction, and appealing it at AN again in a week, is only going to further the impression that you are fixated on being allowed to edit in the American politics topic area even at the expense of other editors' time. I will almost certainly oppose if you appeal so quickly; a week is not sufficiently long to demonstrate that you can edit productively outside the topic area for a sustained period of time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, once again, I’m not asking to edit the articles, only the talk pages. I thought since the admin who wanted the ban also agreed to having it loosened, the admin noticeboard would go better. I still don’t see why you oppose just talk page edits. Clearly American politics is an interest to me. It’s like you’re opposing just to oppose. Why don’t you revisit the subject in a week and see how I’ve been editing instead of making up your mind now? I’m being forced to edit different articles but no one’s forcing you to oppose my ban be loosened (not lifted) next week Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not misunderstanding you; it would be loosening the topic ban to allow you to edit AP talk pages, which is what I was referring to above. I will of course revisit in a week and ensure my opinion is the same, but you did just ask me "If you have reason to oppose, please let me know," so I did. And no, no one is forcing you to do anything; the only restriction is that you not edit AP articles. I have simply advised on how you can best make a case for the restriction to be loosened, but if you'd rather just sit out the three months that is of course an option as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, I would not like to sit out three months. However, you are saying that you will oppose my ban being loosened in a week for the reason of it being a week, and nothing else. If you have opposition (like “you haven’t addressed problem X” or “I would like to see you show examples of reliable sources”) then please let me know, but I don’t think you’re best helping me make a case by simply stating you’ll oppose it in a week because that’s not enough time in your opinion. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained to you precisely why I expect I will oppose such a request. If you don't wish to listen, I can't force you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

You have been blocked for four weeks from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have been blocked for tendentious editing and failure to drop the stick after being advised to move on by several experienced editors and administrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸, I directly appeal to you to undo the block. I have dropped the stick. I have only been responding to GorillaWarfare on my own talk page. I have not asked anyone to appeal the block, only discussing it with those who are still discussing it. User talk:CaptainEek was going to give me some articles I can edit in the meantime, as I am not currently opening an appeal. I don’t get why you would give me a sitewide block. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, if you want me to edit other articles, how am I supposed to do that with a sitewide ban? You didn’t even give me a chance to get some articles from User talk:CaptainEek before you gave me a full block. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to unblock you and will oppose any unblock request before the election. You are wasting other people's time and it is now time for this behavior of yours to come to an end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸, what behavior are you talking about? I am asking that you don’t block me sitewide, as this is so extreme for adding some edits to an endorsement page that were not independent or from a blog. I have addressed these issues and have agreed to edit other articles for at least a week until I appeal a ban. Honestly I don’t get why you dislike me so much? I think that you are a bit bias in this matter as you were pretty harsh towards me when I wanted an unblock from the Republicans who oppose Trump page Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple edit conflicts) Since I asked you to drop the stick, almost every single edit has been arguing about your block. This is the complete opposite of dropping the stick. Frankly, everyone is tired of it. You are free to contest the block, but I politely suggest you have zero chance of it being lifted unless you demonstrate you understand why everyone is tired of it and how your approach would be completely different going forward. If you don't see that, I'm sorry to say Wikipedia isn't the place for you. If you do see that, great. Maybe you can become a valued and constructive member of the community here. Maybe you don't see that now and will in a month, or in three months, or in a year or so. I hope so, because you clearly care enough. But, your behaviour is frankly incompatible with Wikipedia right now. That's it, that's all I'll say on this matter. --Yamla (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your immediate claim that the issue here is with Cullen would seem to drive home that you are not able to see the issues with your own behavior. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with Yamla. Formulate an unblock request if you want but if it just repeats what you have said dozens of times recently, it will not be successful. If you keep repeating yourself, I will withdraw your talk page access. I do not dislike you because I don't know anywhere near enough about you to have an opinion. It is your behavior on Wikipedia that is the problem, and part of my duties as an administrator is to stop disruption. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima - I think several people, including myself, have tried to stop it from getting to this point by giving you concrete advice. I think if you re-read that advice (offered at minimum in the AN thread, on my talk page, and on Gorilla's talk page, though probably elsewhere), read WP:GAB about how to formulate an unblock, and then actually follow both categories of advice you could be successful. The first step of that is to let your next edit be the one that shows that you've done that. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hello and thank you for looking at this unblock request. I was blocked because I wouldn’t drop the stick on getting unbanned but I promise that if I get unblocked I will not discuss the ban in any matter for ~~at least a week~~, and then when I decide to discuss it again, it will only be a request at the admin’s noticeboard. I promise not to bother any more editors and admins about this issue on their talk pages or my talk page. The admin who blocked me said they’d take away my talk page privileges if I try to appeal the block, but I hope someone else sees this and has some sympathy and understands that I will do better and am only here to help the project. And, if you’re an editor/admin who I’ve bothered about this issue and taken your time away from making actual contributions to the project, I’m sorry, whether or not I get unblocked. I know that you are more experienced and can make better contributions than I can, so spending your time hearing my rants was a detriment to the project. And for that, I’m sorry. If this is my last edit ever on Wikipedia, I just want to thank all of the users and admins who have helped me through the past 7 months, it was a lot of fun editing Wikipedia. Good luck with the project. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Revision: promise to not appeal the ban (or lower or discuss in any way) for at least a month Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocking, with the understanding that Lima Bean Farmer will not appeal (including attempt to have loosened) or discuss the American politics topic ban until November 19 at the very soonest. Doing so will result in this block being reinstated. Please edit carefully, and demonstrate your ability to edit productively outside of the topic area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "The admin who blocked me said they’d take away my talk page privileges if I try to appeal the block" but what I actually wrote is "If you keep repeating yourself, I will withdraw your talk page access." So, your characterization of my warning was not accurate, but I am not going to withdraw your talk page access since you are saying some new things. I do not think your block should be lifted at this time but I have no personal animosity toward you. Another administrator will make a decision on your appeal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima this is a very positive unblock request on the whole. I'm a little concerned by I will not discuss the ban in any matter for at least a week. That said, if you're unblocked what kind of editing will you do? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, sure. Well I have been adding to the page List of convicted war criminals and User talk:CaptainEek was going to give me some chores to do on lists, but I doubt that will happen now that I’m blocked. Mainly stick to lists of stuff relating to foreign affairs and history, nothing that even remotely relates to post 1932 politics. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to add, nothing at all relating to my ban either. Anything I talk to about other editors will only be about what I can edit, not what I can’t. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As my name was mentioned several times here, I might as well chime in. For one, I think LBF's topic ban should stay in place for the full 3 months, and I think for their own good they shouldn't even think of appealing it before 3 months are up. But if they can follow their T-ban and otherwise stay out of trouble (i.e. stop canvassing admins/asking the other parent and don't get into controversy), I see no problem with unblocking. I am more than happy to try to guide LBF in the right direction, and find them a non-controversial yet interesting topic area to edit. They expressed interest at several topics, which is more than most topic ban-ees can say. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about LB's unblock request: I will not discuss the ban in any matter for at least a week. They were blocked for failing to drop the stick on this. Promising to stay away from the topic of their ban for at least one week (emphasis mine) is not dropping the stick. Meters (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, I agree to only use the admin noticeboard for an official unban removal (or partial removal), no further discussions. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision was mine to make, I would shorten the current block to end one week after the US presidential election, and then have a WP:ROPE unblock. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy Macon, I’m not asking for an unban, just an unblock. Therefore I could edit non political articles from now until my ban is lifted. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that some are concerned about a week not being enough time. I would like to revise my proposition and say not until next month which is at least thirteen days, before I will even reconsider applying for my ban to be lowered. No discussion about it before then and when the time comes, only on the admin noticeboard Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the concerns editors have are addressed by agreeing not to appeal within 13 days instead of 1 week, which means you may be attempting an appeal just days before the US elections when tensions will be very high, I think this just proves that both the block and ban are still sorely needed. You say you are learning, and perhaps you are but sadly it's taking you way too long and what you learn each time is very limited. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Nil Einne, how about a month? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general after there has been appeal there is not interest in hearing another appeal for six months. Obviously by then your topic ban will have expired. However, I might agree to some sort of narrowing of the topic ban after the election. I'm also inclined to support some form of accepting your unblock appeal. However you have to realize that you have been a large drain on community time and people tire of that pretty quickly. So if you get unblocked and you don't find a way to just quietly go about the business of building an encyclopedia I would predict the next step would be an indefinite block. I don't say that as a threat or to scare you but because it's my honest assessment of the situation and since you're relatively new to our community you should know that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend that you agree to not appeal the ban at all (including requesting any changes to it, such as that you be allowed to edit article talk pages), and commit to editing productively outside of the topic area for the duration of the topic ban. It is only under those conditions that I personally would be willing to lift the block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those situations where the unblock request has been made, and where going silent and no longer talking about being unblocked increases the chance of an early unblock, but asking again -- on any page -- (or even "explaining") actually decreases the chance of an early unblock. I advise Lima Bean Farmer to not respond to this, to go silent, and to wait patiently and see what the decision is. We all heard you the first few dozen times. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a lose-lose situation for me. Even if I do get unblocked, which is unlikely, I’ll have a terrible standing as an editor. I’ll take Guy Macon‘s advice and won’t edit again until the decision has been made, and sit back and hope this goes well. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Bean Farmer has said they don't intend to say more until after the unblock request is handled, and given they have not addressed their statement in the unblock request that they will try to have the topic ban loosened as soon as in one week (or possibly thirteen days, which is no better in my book), I would oppose unblocking at this point. Otherwise we're just going to waste more admins' time in that discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think we've made progress now, with LBF promising not to "appeal the ban (or lower or discuss in any way) for at least a month": [6]. I'm willing to unblock at this point, but first wanted to make sure Wugapodes' concerns were addressed. LBF, do you mind answering their question below? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, you’re putting me in a tough spot here. You’re saying you’d oppose it if I don’t comment further and Guy Macon is saying they’d oppose it if I do. I have revised the above request. As for Wug·‘s question, I will work with CaptainEek on future edits. Haven’t planned anything out specifically, but I can’t really get help from them while I’m still being blocked. Basically checking reliable sources, using the talk page on anything controversial, nothing relating to post 1932 US politics. Once again, nothing specific yet. While I respect Guy Macon’s suggestion, they have already stated they are opposed to my unblock, so I am only adding here to appeal to those who are asking me before they make their decisions. Not trying to go against their advice, just looking at the larger picture and it seems the admins still unsure would rather hear my answers.Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I would oppose if you continued talking about it. I merely gave you some advice, which you are free to ignore, and which might be bad advice. I already made my position clear: "If the decision was mine to make, I would shorten the current block to end one week after the US presidential election, and then have a WP:ROPE unblock." I stand by that. Please stop pinging me. The decision is not mine to make, and my advice will not change. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I don't personally agree with Guy Macon on that point. IMO the won't appeal for '1 week' part was bad enough that some followup on your part was required. 1 month may be good enough, but it would have been better for you if it had been 1 month after people raised objections to 13 days, and even better if you'd suggested 1 month at the beginning. Frankly despite the earlier problems IMO the best appeal would have been if you just didn't mention a minimum period before an appeal although I expect some may disagree with this. That being the case, appealing one week after the election somewhat similar to what Guy Macon has mentioned may have been fine assuming things in the US had calmed down since then and you'd shown a good pattern of editing. Yet although I think this is about 3 weeks, if you'd responded to my earlier point say 'okay how about 3 weeks' I would be shaking my head. And in a similar fashion, not commenting further after your appeal would have been the best for you, but only if your appeal had been good enough that no further comment was needed. In other words, you can't undo history and once you've given people concern you can't so easily take that back. Of course this is all too late now but maybe it illustrates why you should think carefully about what brought your sanction and how you need to change before commenting. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, as stated above, while you were typing, I don’t have specific edits or sources currently. I was working on that with Captain Eek when I got blocked. If you’d like, you can “give” me something to do and I will show you an example (like show me a page and I would show you how I would improve it) or give me examples and I can tell you what would be acceptable. Does that work? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer specifics. If unblocked, I want you to succeed. Having a specific plan and goal, especially ones that you came up with yourself, decreases the chance that we wind up here again. As it stands, I would not oppose an unblock per WP:ROPE, but I would be more comfortable with a more specific plan. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des 18:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've already given you plenty of suggestions of articles ([7], [8]), and if you need a "to-do list", Wikipedia:Backlog has loads. I'd like to see something along the lines of what Wugapodes suggested -- an example or two of a change you plan to make, and what sources you would use to support said change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, the Jewish Virtual Library seems to have quite a bit of information on war criminals which I would add based on articles such as [9] to the page List of convicted war criminals. However I can’t seem to find much information on the reliability of the source so I would probably start an rfc to see what people think on if it’s a reliable source before adding a bunch of information. Is that good? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the sources at the bottom of that page, it says "Sources: Deutsche Welle (August 12, 2004); Wikipedia ; Spiegel Online, (June 23, 2005); Reuters, (April 21, 2004); Haaretz, (June 23, 2005), AP, (June 22, 2005)". All of those are reliable sources except for Wikipedia (WP:UGC), and it's important to avoid citing sources that cite Wikipedia to avoid circular sourcing. I would suggest instead of using JVL directly, using the sources that they're using directly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, agreed. I have read the article on circular sources previously, and understand this. I would use the sources they have used that are non Wikipedia to make additions to that page. Also, since I don’t seem to see community consensus on that website, I could start an rfc to get a definitive decision from the community on the reliability of the source. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend an WP:RSN discussion before going straight to an RfC, but that seems like a decent answer to me. I would also recommend WP:RSP as a resource for determining the reliability of common sources as you go forward. I'm going to unblock you now with the understanding that you will not appeal (including attempt to have loosened) or discuss the American politics topic ban until November 19 at the very soonest. Please edit carefully. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What articles do you plan to edit if unblocked? What specific references would you use to improve them? Without answers to those questions, I don't see this request going anywhere. — Wug·a·po·des 17:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that they identified Well I have been adding to the page List of convicted war criminals and User talk:CaptainEek was going to give me some chores to do on lists above. That doesn't completely answer your question but did want to note what information was out there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Remember, you were unblocked with the understanding that you don't even discuss your American politics topic ban until November 19 at the earliest. Please consider this broadly. Don't even bring up the matter. Not until November 19th at the earliest. Don't discuss the election, don't discuss how long after the election until we get results, don't discuss when it would be appropriate to contest your topic ban. --Yamla (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dear User: Lima Bean Farmer, thank you for spotting that my old account, User: ACEOREVIVED, was listed as a missing Wikipedian. Thank you too for removing it - I am now active under the name Vorbee! Vorbee (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vorbee, of course. I am glad that you are still active! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Lima Bean Farmer! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Source, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

alainr345 missing in action

To tell you the truth Ma'm, years back I grew dissatissfied with the absurd attribution of hierarchy at WP: seems people there are more preoccupied with "cleaning things" than with putting more relevant content online. I may get back more frequently in the future... if I do not find something more interesting in life to do. (alainr345) --72.10.149.168 (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure where to leave a response so I will place it at my talk page and the talk pages for both your IP and your former frequently used accounts. Thank you for getting back to me! It’s a shame you think of it that way, I think there are plenty of spots that could have improvement and relevant information. However, if you believe differently, then good luck with wherever life takes you! Since you clearly are still here and edit sporadically (not fully retired), I will not add you back to missing Wikipedians. Even if you are busy with life, I hope you still have the chance to check back in and let us know how you’re doing every once in a while. If you ever do fully retire (hope you don’t!) then you can add a retirement message on your talk page. Happy editing and enjoy life wherever it takes you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision and for for abusing multiple accounts which have been confirmed as your socks to violate your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 9 months. 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.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:29, 19 December 2020 (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."

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

An indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics

You have been sanctioned for using a sockpuppet to evade your 3 month topic ban in this area

This topic ban 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. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that bans apply to you as the person and not to the account. If you use sockpuppets to evade this 9 month block and/or now indefinite topic ban, you may be blocked indefinitely. Consider this as your last chance before getting an indefinite block. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk to me, you must be mistaken. While it’s true that I have violated copyright, edit warred, added unsourced information, as well S various other infractions in the past, I have not sockpuppeted (is that the right term?). I really only check my email notifications on this account and it appears that there is now an indefinite ban on me. I truly have been waiting out the 3 month ban (I read the investigation) and stopped editing because other edits were boring. I am not this other user, I am not related to nor friends with him/her/them. While I looked a little and they seem to have similar interests, it is not me. Please remove this, as this is just one large misunderstanding. I hope you can understand. Thank you and happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppetry. The technical evidence is very clear here. You are very lucky this block was not indefinite; it still could be. --Yamla (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk, I’m sorry, technical evidence? What does that mean? I honestly know that I’ve done things wrong before, but not here. I was also falsely accused of advertising when I really only didn’t know the username policy. I really only have one account and this is it. Please reconsider this block. I have waited almost two months, my ban was almost over. Why is everyone so opposed to me editing here! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't wait two months though, you created another account and used that instead. There's no sense denying it. – bradv🍁 19:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading the page about checkusers to find out what technical evidence is. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lima Bean Farmer. Since you can't stay away from politics, I have a suggestion. Why not join WPTC when you're block is up? We are in need of editors, and I think you would be an asset to us. You may get unblocked earlier, and I highly recommend doing it, to avoid further trouble(and because we need help). --Hurricane Tracker 495 22:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane, you’re the only person here who seems to be assuming good faith towards me here. Before I attempt to respond to anyone else, could you please explain to me what WPTC is? Thank you and happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP: WPTC is the WikiProject for tropical cyclones. --Hurricane Tracker 495 00:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane, it’s very kind of you to say that I would be a valuable asset to the project, but out of curiosity, why would you think this? Especially since you relate it to politics. Once again, I appreciate it, but could you tell me why? This may help me get unblocked. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have to retract the offer, actually. See User talk: HurricaneTracker495#User: Lima Bean Farmer. --Hurricane Tracker 495 13:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to also say that I was very close to deciding on an indefinite block. I hope that you can learn from this, which is why I moved to a block with an expiry. Denial won't help your cause, especially as multiple CUs have found that it was confirmed sockpuppetry. Denial is also very likely to lead to your topic ban remaining in force indefinitely, as I can't see how such an appeal would be successful if you haven't owned up. It will be a benefit for you to be as honest as you can, regardless of whether you control both accounts. You may appeal this block, but as its an AE action, such an appeal would go to WP:AN, WP:AE, or WP:ARCA. Based on the confirmation and also the behavioral evidence too, I would not be undoing my action unless you own up to it. I am also very unlikely to accept an appeal of the block until 6 months has passed without any sockpuppetry. You may of course appeal at AN, AE or ARCA at any time, but such an appeal is from my experience unlikely to be accepted until some time has passed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk to me, is there anything I can do to make this better? If I am being honest, I am a good faith editor. I am not here to taunt other editors, to purposefully disrupt pages, or to vandalize. Neither am I here to push the limits on rules by making a bunch of sockpuppets or ignoring other editors. I genuinely want to be friendly with other editors and work constructively. On the other hand, I’m not trying to be some role model editor or admin or anything like that. I’m only human. Not saying anyone else isn’t (other than the bots), but I don’t have that much time to edit Wikipedia or be someone who does administrative work with the website itself. I attempted to do some editing on the 2020 elections which continually got me in trouble. I have been working on improving as an editor since the beginning. I add reliable sources, I recognize independent and secondary sources, I have helped resolve conflicts, and I have an idea on what does and doesn’t belong. It seems that you and various other editors have been fed up with me and will do whatever they can to prevent me from editing. Once again, I really am only interested in politics, I tried doing other things but they just got so boring after a while. Wikipedia is a hobby and politics are more of a passion. In addition, I haven’t ever added my personal politics into editing Wikipedia. I know that stating things that I didn’t do wrong may not be helping me, but it’s worth a shot at this point. My main focus has been to improve wikipedia on the subject I know (American politics) and learn how to become a better Wikipedia editor. If the wiki community no longer wants these services from me, I understand. Please let me know if there’s anything I can do, and I will genuinely do my best to make it up to you and the community, but if you think that I have no option (other than waiting 9 months and then indefinitely) to edit Wikipedia again, I will understand. Thank you for your time. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The block is for using an undisclosed alternate account to avoid a previous sanction. This needs to be addressed before any other issue, including how likely it is to reoccur if you were unblocked but still banned from American Politics. Also per Dreamy Jazz above, you'd be better off waiting quite a time before appealing, then drafting an appeal for AN or similar and hoping that community patience hasn't already run out. Unfortunately that's a possibility at this stage. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Euryalus. What would you suggest I do, just wait it out and reconsider in a month or so? I’m open to pretty much anything at this point just to make new constructive edits. I actually thought Wikipedia was a fun place, I just want some way to edit again under any condition. Thanks again. Your friend, Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to start here: Did you use a sockpuppet account to evade a sanction? You've said no above, but there is reportedly clear evidence confirmed by more than one checkuser. I also think a month isn't going to cut it - Dreamy Jazz's suggestion seems a more realistic time frame. It's a shame that tha is so, but you really have racked up an impressive list of sanctions in a fairly short time! -- Euryalus (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, I know it seems that way. In addition, you have been very kind and patient with me. Dreamy Jazz has a 9 month block and an indefinite ban on me. To be completely truthful, an unblock wouldn’t really be very beneficial without an unban (although I’ll take it if offered). If I say that I am running both accounts, do you think that would help or hurt my case? Thank you again, Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well you clearly are, so I'd just be honest and say so.

You seem like a reasonable person but given the number of issues to date I'm wondering if en-WP editing is the right hobby for you. However, if you do want to keep at it I'd suggest finding something else to do for several months (italics for emphasis), and coming back with a detailed outline of how you understand policies and guidelines on verifiability, neutrality and sockpuppetry, plus what you'd like to edit and why it would be a benefit to en-WP's editing objectives to let you do so.

Be prepared for a fair bit of doubt on this front, and for a continued topic ban from American Politics as that's where the difficulties have been. And don't sockpuppet in the interim - even without checkuser evidence your editing patterns are fairly easy to detect. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, Euryalus, you don’t think I’ll be able to edit American politics ever again? This was the only thing I was unclear of in your above statement. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 20:37, 21 December 2020 edit Euryalus (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 44,376 edits →Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban: reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:28, 23 December 2020 edit undo Lima Bean Farmer (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 8,616 edits →Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Next edit →
Line 528:		Line 528:

	:::::::::::Be prepared for a fair bit of doubt on this front, and for a continued topic ban from American Politics as that's where the difficulties have been. And don't sockpuppet in the interim - even without checkuser evidence your editing patterns are fairly easy to detect. -- [[User:Euryalus\|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus\|talk]]) 20:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)		:::::::::::Be prepared for a fair bit of doubt on this front, and for a continued topic ban from American Politics as that's where the difficulties have been. And don't sockpuppet in the interim - even without checkuser evidence your editing patterns are fairly easy to detect. -- [[User:Euryalus\|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus\|talk]]) 20:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


			::::::::::::So, [[User:Euryalus\|Euryalus]], you don’t think I’ll be able to edit American politics ever again? This was the only thing I was unclear of in your above statement. Thank you. [[User:Lima Bean Farmer\|Lima Bean Farmer]] ([[User talk:Lima Bean Farmer#top\|talk]]) 02:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)