Hello. I reverted your edit to Malcolm X. For an explanation why, please see Talk:Malcolm X#May 2010. I'd appreciate your input there, and any help you can provide in finding a reliable source would also be welcome. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have shown interest in 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sscloud21 reported by User:Lard Almighty (Result: ). Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~)).  Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2022 (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).

Sscloud21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

finished a previous prior of 'edit war' with TWM03, you can read his talk page to see we broadly got to an agreement. Was then goaded by Lard Almighty who blanket deleted all edits, referred me to talk page, which they themselves ignored - you can read the consensus that Nawaz's latest views have turned to Conspiracy theories which I was attempting to reflect. In fact, Lard Almighty, in this instance, started the edit war in this instance. I tried to update the page repeatedly, ironically in line with their suggestion, but got error messages due to their immediate reversion to their preferred viewpoint. I acknowledge fault in dealings with TWM03, which I was able to resolve, but did not engage in an edit war with Lard Almighty, rather they engaged in one on the page and ignored the tall page consensus. As such I think a ban is not fair, or should also be applied to Lard Almighty who triggered the war.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:09, 25 November 2022 (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.

Sscloud21 (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you read the discussion below you can see that the above is patently untrue. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A quick look at the edit summary shows the above to be incorrect. By my count, four other editors were disputing the additions, and one of them brought it to the BLP noticeboard (which is where I was alerted to the issue; I had never edited this article before). As the editor who wants to add controversial material to a WP:BLP, the onus is on Sscloud21 to set out the reasons on the talk page and gain broad consensus (not just "broad agreement" with one editor). This he did not do. In fact, the editor's only intervention on the talk page was to attack editors who were trying to uphold Wikipedia policies. He also made 5 reverts in a 24-hour period rather than engaging. Quite apart from that, the editor has been blocked for other reasons than edit-warring. Clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your summary is not complete and I fear is being selective..

  Your summary is not complete and I fear is being selective and oversimplified to support my blocking.

  1) No other editor disputed my central point, that Nawaz had descended into conspiracy theories. Only you did. And by your own admission, you have not been a regular contributor and are not aware of the general talking points.

  2) I correctly sourced an article which detailed this, date August 2022

  3) This was consistent with talk page in which activity ceased around July 2022. The article came afterwards and hence was not reflected in discussions

  4) The summary of the talk segment "Views nead an overhaul" was "Probably a conspiracy theorist, but none of the many listed articles are quite strong enough to state this explicitly on Wikipedia"

  5) When I found the article, and given the above context, it was clear it was appropriate to update Nawaz as a conspiracy theorist

  6) None of the subsequent edits material disagreed with this, despite your attempt to suggest they did

  7) I've acknowledged my behaviour was not acceptable in interactions with TWM03, and that we eventually got to a point of broad agreement and I said to them I should've done things in a better way. You've selectively weaponised just the bad parts, which does not imply good faith on your part

  8) You were the first and only person, following several days of the Conspiracy theories point being reflected to contest and immediately delete it, clearly not engaging with any of the talking points at all. When I tried to reason with you that the edits you were suggeting were being made and your actions were interfering with that process (stated in the history), you escalated to block me.

  9) My appeal is that it is completely unfair given the prior end war had ended, the page updated reflected a position the regular contributors has been discussion and you reignited a new edit war. You then cleverly, I will give you that, used my prior history to paint me as the unreasonable one during our interactions and get me blocked.

  Did I go about things in a bad way at first, yes. Unlike you I'm at least capable of acknowledging this.

  Did I go about things in a bad way at first, yes. At least I'm capable of acknowledging this. I'm disappointed that the admins have not been able to see the last interactions properly due to your selective citation. Sscloud21 (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. I did not dispute any point. I simply reverted you because a) you were edit-warring with several editors and b) you had not explained on the talk page why these additions were appropriate per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS.
  • 2. That it is sourced doesn't matter. There are issues of WP:UNDUE and other issues surrounding a WP:BLP
  • 3. Indeed the changes you made were not reflected in the discussions (despite your claims of consensus), that is why you should have come to the talk page when it was clear other editors disagreed with including it.
  • 4. "None of the sources are quite strong enough..." Clearly other editors agreed this is still the case by reverting you. Again, you should have gained consensus for your edits on the TP at that point.
  • 5. Clearly not, as others disagreed. Yet again, you should have gained consensus for your edits on the TP at that point.
  • 6. Other editors disagreed by reverting you, and in the discussion at the BLP noticeboard.
  • 7. Your interactions over this have included attacking other editors, and that is one of the reasons you were blocked. That wasn't me. That was an uninvolved admin looking at the history and coming to a conclusion.
  • 8. Umm, no I wasn't. TWM03 was the first yesterday. When you reverted that, ToBeFree reverted you with a very clear edit summary and made other changes (again with clear edit summaries) and Thriley removed more content you had added. You then reverted again (which brought you to WP:3RR BTW). Thriley reverted again, again with a very clear summary and pointing you to the BLP noticeboard. You reverted yet again taking you over three reverts That is when I jumped in a reverted. You reverted again, I reverted again and then you were blocked. All this took place over about 6 hours on 3 October.
  • 9. I'll leave it to the reviewing admin to decide that. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just realised something really silly. You're completely, right Thriley also reverted the changes on the page. I was perplexed when you said edit war with 4 people (as I only remembered yourself and TWM03 making material edits), because somehow my brain only had you and TWM03 in mind.

    Disregard my points in regards to being goaded, my bad. I don't quite know how I missed that. To be explicit, I'm sorry about that rather glaring error. Sscloud21 (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Despite the name "war", edit warring does not have to be against another individual editor or even necessarily a two-sided thing. What I did may also be perceived as edit warring, but there are three important differences: (i) I never breached the WP:3RR, (ii) I attempted to end the edit warring by taking the discussion to talk pages, WP:WikiProject Politics and WP:BLPN, and (iii) my edits were removing recently added material from a WP:BLP article that I considered to be unsourced, so the WP:BURDEN for the changes was not on me.

Sscloud21 is correct to say that nobody reverted the descriptor of "conspiracy theorist", only a later statement that linked this to his dismissal from LBC. However, this isn't particularly relevant to this matter or to whether reverting it was appropriate. TWM03 (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I had warned you for a reason; now we're here. Your editing behavior is currently incompatible with biographies of living persons on Wikipedia; your unblock request ("did not engage in an edit war") doesn't address the issue. If I hadn't cleaned up (and arguably became involved) after your policy violations, I'd decline the request myself. Details can be found at the BLP noticeboard (permanent link). I should perhaps note for the record that I was notified about your edits by an AIV report you had made about TWM03 ([1]). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]