User talk:BritishToff

March 2022

Hello, I'm Extraordinary Writ. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Adam Kinzinger have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Azov Battalion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Im new to wikipedia. Am I banned from commenting again? BritishToff (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. You can comment, but you have to assume other editors are working in good faith. Your blanket statement was just not OK. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, I will. Thanks. BritishToff (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American politics sanctions alert

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

You have shown interest in post-1992 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.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please don't use misleading edit summaries, as you did here. Bishonen | tålk 22:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Gender and sexuality sanctions alert

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

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep sending me these vague alerts? BritishToff (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not as vague as you'd think, and they're to formally alert you to discretionary sanctions in those topic areas. Administrators are permitted to summarily sanction misbehaving editors who have been made aware of any discretionary sanctions regimes active in the topic areas where they've been editing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing vague about those alerts--disregard them at your peril. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have shown an interest in these topics, and in a way that violates any number of polcies (let alone WP:AC/DS sanctions). You are being warned in order to give you a chance to stop breaking the rules, and thus continue to edit. Frankly you seem to be a wp:not account, but others (rightly per out policies) a warning you rather than banning you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Europe and the Balkans sanctions alert

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

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

(Specific text of the DS authorisation: WP:ARBEE#Standard discretionary sanctions; text in collapsible was superseded by the text underneath it.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MArch 22

Please read wp:npa and wp:soap, article wp:talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not attacking other users (no matter how indirectly). Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info

Dear colleague, these kinds of comments[1] are considered personal attacks and you could be sanctioned. If you have to raise doubts you can't do it this way. Try to be polite to other colleagues and find a collective solution.--Mhorg (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

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 ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 02:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If another admin finds contrition, no need to wait for me to overturn this block. However user seems to be here to push all the buttons, and not actually build an encyclopedia. Star Mississippi 02:04, 24 March 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).

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

Request reason:

Hi admins. I was recently blocked for disruptive editing however I don't believe this was what I did or atleast my intentions. I made two edits yesterdays, the first one on the Channel 24 Ukraine page. I added a new controversies section which included a small write up on how a presenter quoted a nazi holocaust orchestrator and called for the extermination of Russian children and the genocide of Russians and told his viewers to murder atleast one Russian. This was true and received wide coverage in the news and social media. There is endless evidence of this occurring. Although my edit may have been worded from a bias point of view, everything I edited in was 100% true and was notable enough to be included. My second edit was on the Z symbol page. Where I added in brackets that there was no evidence Russians appropriated it from the Z symbol. Which is true as random governments were accusing them of the vaguest links to nazi imagery which is literally not true and I believed it should be clarified. Other than that I made no other edits that could be considered disruptive and I added sources for all edits I made. I apologise if my edis broke the rules but I ask for you to notify me about the problems in my edits in the future if there are any as I am relatively new t wikipedia. Sorry for wasting your time reverting my edits and I humbly apologise and ask for you to consider my appeal. Star Mississippi 16:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your editing was certainly disruptive and nothing here convinces me you'd behave differently if unblocked. Yamla (talk) 20:34, 24 March 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.

Azov

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

Elinruby (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Appeal

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

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

Request reason:

Greetings Administrator. I was recently blocked for disruptive edits. I added a controversies section to the Ukraine 24 channel page and added sources. At first I believed I was right in my previous appeal but after reading the wikipedia rules and regulations I have now seen and understood how I was wrong, as even though the information I added was correct, the sources may be seen as unreliable or bias and may edits can may be seen as disruptive in a general sense. I also admit to blatantly disruptive edits I made to the Adam Kinzinger and Z Symbol articles. I regret trying to push my own narratives on these articles and thus I take responsibility for my actions and truly apologise for disrupting the wikipedia system.*:My behaviour was wrong and violated Wikipedias rules and I surely have regret for my actions. I promise to not repeat my disruptive behaviour but actions peak better than words and that is why I shall be taking the following steps to ensure I don't repeat my behaviour. -I have read all the Wikipedia rules especially WP:DE and all its contents and promise to abide by the rules - Before making any major or potentially controversial edits I will consult with my fellow wikipedians in the talk page and produce a consensus - I promise to only use reliable sources and to cite reliable sources in all my edits - I shall thoroughly research and verify any information that I add to wikipedia in the future - I promise to be respectful to my fellow wikipedians and follow the rules regarding user interaction. I recently joined wikipedia with an aim of finding a pastime where I can spread information and help improve the encyclopedia in areas that take my interest such as politics, history, British culture and Nigerian culture and affairs. Wikipedia has been such a welcoming place especially for a new editor like me and I feel ashamed that I have already caused a scene and broken the rules that keep this community safe and the encyclopedia realiable, unbias and growing faster than ever and I truely apologise. I humbly ask for my appeal to be considered and I shall be very grateful for an unblock, as I have read the ruules and plan on followiing them and upholding the decorum of wikipedia. I also plan on continuing to develop and improve wikipedia articles concerning my home countries of Britain and Nigeria as will as in my numerous interests, for example I have recently improved the Stowe School article with some reliable information. Thank you for reading my humble appeal and I hope for a positive outcome. :) BritishToff (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Account has been unblocked by user:Star Mississippi — Voice of Clam 16:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit to being pretty suspicious of the tone of this request - it is certainly 180 degrees from the tone used last week (indeed, it's pretty different to the tone used just hours earlier) - but I'd say we either need to accept the request, or revise the template to indicate they can never request an unblock. Just declining it wouldn't make much sense. I don't see how we'll get a better one than this. On the one hand, it certainly feels kind of manipulative (clearly just saying what we want to hear); on the other hand, if it is insincere, I suppose we'd see that soon enough. @Star Mississippi:, @Yamla:, your thoughts? Against my instinct, I guess I'd suggest accepting, with a close eye on them going forward, but I can also see how "clown" one minute, followed by "I promise to be respectful to my fellow wikipedians" the next, is too much to swallow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Floquenbeam:. I'm not entirely sure how I'd reconcile this request with being a pronoun warrior but willing to give them a second chance if @Yamla: is. I will say, BritishToff, that if you are making a good argument without substance behind it, you will be reblocked swiftly and with a much tougher path back. Star Mississippi 01:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board. Either way, BritishToff will demonstrate whether it was a good plan. :) --Yamla (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're unblocked

Hi @BritishToff. Per our discussion above, I definitely suggest you be cautious before wading into contentious areas. You'll have eyes on your editing so best to make them pleased with what they see. Star Mississippi 13:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes I will, thanks. BritishToff (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Brady R. Allred

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Brady R. Allred, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. Instead, I have started a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brady R. Allred (2nd nomination), which you may comment on. I have explained my reasons for doing so there. Thanks! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having done which, I do entirely agree with your observation that it "contains lots of useless information and bias wording that is almost impossible to fix without removing 90% of the article". So the fix is to remove 90% of the article. Alternatively, you could re-AfD, but that seems likely to yield the same result as before. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that in this edit to Matt Walsh (political commentator), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ... discospinster _talk 17:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already explianed that a lot of this Article was poorly sourced. The Daily Beast is not a reliable source neither is the National Review. BritishToff (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus about the reliability of the National Review. —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. BritishToff (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

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.

Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

I notice that a lot of your edits are tagged as minor when they are quite substantial. The bar for a minor edit is pretty strict. It is things like fixing typos, spellings and minor formatting. Adding or removing whole sentences is not minor. Please check whether you have the setting to mark edits minor by default set in your Preferences. If you do, I recommend to turn that off as it is far better to accidentally forget to tag a minor edit as minor than to accidentally tag a major edit as minor. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is BritishToff. Thank you. --Pokelova (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

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 ~~~~}}. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 01:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight. I removed information sourced from the bias unreliable daily beast, I added that Vaush is far left which is basically true as hes an anarchist sociaist, I changed Prince Hamzahs article to reflect that he dropped his title, I added that Sepan Bandera is a nazi collaborator and mentioned that the russian RNU is banned and unregistered and somehow that is distruptive. You clrealy just want me gone because Im balancing out all the stupidly bias articles people have made on wikipedia and not trying to push my own narrative unlike other editors. you have not mentioned anys wrong I have done and didnt even acknowledge all the dozens of helpful edits I made to other articles but decide to ban me for adding clarification and de-biasing articles. I hope Wikipedia is happy about how they treat their new editors in the most disgusting way possible. You have IP bots that you randomly allow to edit their narratives into Ukraine articles but ban an established and potentially helpful editor who clearly isnt here to push his narrative. I hope you are happy since you have accomplished what you want by removing interested individuals form your platform and you wonder why wikipedia still isnt a reliable source for all when you continue to allow one sided narratives on you platform. BritishToff (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also funny how wikipedia recommends articles for me to edit, then when I edit it normally, mods start swooping in and banning me. BritishToff (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendations are automated and don't take into account the multiple discretionary sanctions advisories you've been given. The review of your edits, particularly in those topics—such as blanking all sourced material on a politician's views on transgender individuals, which hits three sanctions areas (gender, American politics, and biographies of living people)—is done by individuals applying judgment and experience. The block was done after an appeal to the community for enforcement of sanctions in one or more of the topic areas.

In other words, the community determined that your edits do more harm than good and that your behaviour is unlikely to improve. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as somebody who saw the diffs that were reported, none of that was "normal editing". To behave like that, particularly after having been let off an indef block only days before, was only ever going to end up one way. I find the performative outrage unconvincing. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, daily beast is not a reliable source. I didnt mean to remove the whole section but the parts concerning the documentary which is actually real and not fake and is called What is a Woman. Please do your own research before calling me out on stuff. BritishToff (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should explain what a discretionary sanction is instead of sending vaguely worded alerts that I dont even understand if Im being sanctioned, warned or just some random automated message. BritishToff (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Competence is required. Wikipedia is not child care. Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should re-read this section of your talk page where the discretionary alerts, and consequences of ignoring them, are explained to you. I was about to put a gender and sexuality DS alert on your page yesterday based on your deliberate deadnaming and misgendering of a trans subject, but saw such an alert had already been issued just two weeks ago. Funcrunch (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]