Welcome!

Hello, MarsTrombone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme)) before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[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.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Doreen Granpeesheh) for tendentious and promotional editing related to Center for Autism and Related Disorders and Doreen Granpeesheh, including repeated reverts at the latter.

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 ~~~~)).  Abecedare (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Administrator note MarsTrombone, while I am glad that you have not edit-warred at the Center for Autism and Related Disorders after your previous page-block expired, I am disappointed to see the recent activity at the related article of Doreen Granpeesheh. Your singular focus on these two articles, with promotional and tendentious posts on the talkpage, are getting to be disruptive. For now you are welcome to propose and discuss edits on the respective article talkpages, use wikipedia's dispute resolution processes or consult editors at the relevant projects or noticeboards (WP:FRINGE, WP:BLPN, WT:MED etc) but disregarding the feedback you have received so far and beating a deadhorse is likely to get you topic-banned from this area. Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am here because I was going to talk about working with you on Granpeesheh's article. The issue is not necessarily about the article's content, but rather how you chose to go about it. Rather than collaborating and accepting input from other seasoned editors, you made headstrong decision and wouldn't listen. This is also not the first time from what I see. WP is best when you gain consensus. If you are ever unbanned, my advice is that you remember that. MartinezMD (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MartinezMD: As I wrote in the note above, MarsTrombone is still able and welcome to edit the article talkpage, and propose and discuss changes in order to gain consensus. You are welcome to collaborate with them in this effort. Abecedare (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the beginning of this section (see above) it says "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Doreen Granpeesheh) for tendentious and promotional editing related to Center for Autism and Related Disorders and Doreen Granpeesheh, including repeated reverts at the latter." So I assumed the editor was blocked... We can see if he will add cooperatively to the talk page. MartinezMD (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MartinezMD- If you want to collaborate I'm open to it. I'm on vacation thru the 15th so may not respond until after. So, not ignoring your message. MarsTrombone (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you're back, make your proposals on the article talk page. Try not to get heated expressing yourself and be open-minded or you won't gain any traction with your points. MartinezMD (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abecedare I'd like clarification and include specific examples so that I can understand the reasons for my indefinite block. If I understand the specific reasons I promise to improve and not repeat any inappropriate behavior. My recollection of the sequence follows:

(1) I made sourced edits which resulted in the following article: [Granpeeshe version]

(2) Every sentence of this content was independently sourced from two sources. These edits were 100% original and have no relation now or in the past to any content or sources in the CARD article or any of my previous edits. I believe I did not use promotional or self-published sources for any content. Knowing Wikipedia's core rules I always try to be quite careful to use reliable non-promotional sources.

(3) another editor completely reverted all my changes and wrote "Your edits are entirely based on her own promotional claims"

(4) My edits were sourced from a published biography and several articles written by journalists. I disagreed on the article's Talk that they are based on "promotional" claims. For example her early life, college studies or career can all be fact checked and are not promotional but are biographical content standard in any biography. The facts were gathered from the published biography and the journalists articles and there were two sources for each fact.

(5) While I disagreed with the revert, I did not RR the editor's revert of my work. Instead I took all my discussion points to the Talk page.

(6) I initiated a reasoned discussion of the biographical content and sources.

(7) During these limited Talk discussion the other editor just repeated their "promotion" claim. The other editor never provided any specific examples.

(8) The other editor then began adding content I considered medically inaccurate and potentially defamatory to the subject. [Version Link]

(9) I deleted the editor's content a single time with a comment proposing discussing controversial biographical content first on the Talk page

(10) My edit was reverted with no explanation or reference to the Talk page.

(11) I was banned indefinitely from further article edits.

I've put effort into making reasoned and rationale comments on the Talk page. I have edited many articles going back to 2010, and I willing to learn to be a better editor. Given my edits and Talk page comments got me banned on this article, I'd like to understand the following:

(A) which specific posts on the Talk page or in the article or sources are promotional?

(B) which posts are tendentious? Are there specific examples I can learn from?

Thank you MarsTrombone (talk) MarsTrombone (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On May 17'th 2022 you were blocked from editing Center for Autism and Related Disorders in response to a report at WP:ANEW, in the hope that you would "use the time to establish consensus for any of the changes they wish to make". Instead, you started adding the disputed content to the related BLP, Doreen Granpeesheh. And you started edit-warring to remove sourced content from that article with edit-summary claiming that the removal was "per-talk" even though anybody could easily check and see that that wasn't true. Such conduct is disruptive even if one overlooks that your additions and deletions to these pages seemed to consistently align with a POV about the subject.

IMO you cannot edit this topic neutrally or non-disruptively and that was the reason your page-block was made indefinite on July 1st. You were still welcome to suggest edits to the article on the talk-pages or use dispute resolution, but you stopped editing wikipedia altogether after that indefinite page block... only to return on Sep 18th to support a new editor Jessehutch19 who was edit-warring to delete the same material from the Doreen Granpeesheh article as you.

Given this history, I share the concerns RoySmith (diff) and Black Kite (diff) have expressed regarding possible off-wiki coordination and/or COI or undisclosed paid-editing but am willing to assume good faith for now as long as the disruption doesn't resume. Abecedare (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abecedare First, thank you for responding. I appreciate your response and I hope you can listen to my response. Multiple false accusations against me continue to be repeated without justification or evidence, e.g COI, paid editor, copyright violation, sock puppet. None are true. In several cases I feel the Other CARD editor accusations have been repeated without anyone looking into the facts. There are article content statements above I believe are not correct and maybe they are based on a misunderstanding, therefore I'd like an opportunity to set the record straight.

You wrote: "Instead, you started adding the disputed content to the related BLP"

You basically rephrased the Other editors accusation: "This is the same inappropriately sourced material you tried to add at Center for Autism and Related Disorders. Even stronger sourcing guidelines apply to a biography of a living person. No promotional sources. No primary sources. Your edits are entirely based on her own promotional claims"

OK. Both statements are simply not true. The reason I switched to editing the Granpeesheh article is because referenced biographical source material is readily available, I assumed this RS content would be non-controversial and I was tiring of the endless non-substantive non-content debates with the Other editor. Therefore I ask - specifically what disputed or inappropriately sourced content from the CARD article did I add to the Granpeesheh biography?

Please examine these three CARD articles

CARD 2019 [2019 version]

Disputed CARD 2022 [Disputed 2022]

Current CARD article [Current Version]

Compared to the recent Granpeesheh biography content which I edited.

Granpeesh Biography [Grappeesheh Biography]

There is little to zero duplication of content between any version of the CARD articles and my version of the Granpeesheh biography. In any case, we can readily agree that the CARD content was disputed and content objections were raised for being "promotional", "unsourced" and/or "medical advice". I don't see how a promotional or medical advice or source objection or violation could be raised against the Granpeesheh biography content I created from scratch and edited. Without listing any specific content examples, the Other Editor deleted all my content without naming a single specific example. If you disagree and believe your statement above then I'd like to see substantive and specific examples of the "disputed" or "promotional" text in the biography article.

Thank you. MarsTrombone (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issues with making this edit to the Doreen Granpeesheh article, while related disputes were ongoing at Center for Autism and Related Disorders has been discussed before and I don't believe it would be useful to rehash them. And again, that is only a part of the pattern of behavior (which I have outlined in my notes above) that led to the page blocks. So where do we go from here?

1. As I have said several times before, my advice would be that, if you wish, you can propose specific changes to either of the articles on their talkpage, establish consensus for the edit (using dispute resolution if needed), and then implement the change using an edit-request. A bit cumbersome but it doesn't actually prevent any improvement from being made to the articles but does prevent edit-warring etc. If you are able to show that you can follow this process, I would also consider lifting the page-blocks as being no longer needed.
2. Alternatively, you can appeal the page block by either using the ((Unblock)) template or at WP:AN. Note though that I will be opposed to the block being lifted at the moment since I don't see any indication that the factors that led to it have been resolved.

Of course, you are also welcome to simply put the Granpeesheh and CARD pages on the backburner and contribute to other (unrelated) articles where you face no restrictions. That would help you gain experience with wikipedia policies and practices, and also ease concerns of being a singularly focused editor. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abecedare - you mention a "pattern of behavior" yet fail to give specific behavior examples. This is making it difficult for me to understand what I did wrong so I can avoid the behavior in the future. I've been consensus editing Wikipedia for over ten years without ever being page banned or even reverted. My edits have been modified or changed, even content deleted many times, and I've never caused a problem before. I acknowledge I did violate the 3RR policy, quite inadvertently, and I apologize for that. It won't happen again.

I took the spirit of the ban to heart and politely initiated a discussion of sources and content on the Talk page. I fail to understand why my Talk activity on the CARD Talk page is now considered a "dispute" rather than a discussion? Especially since I initiated the discussion. My singular focus on this topic is circumstantial. This article has some unique properties, so the only way to learn how these specific Guidelines work WP:RS, WP:MED, WP:BLP is to make the Edit attempts. IMO, it is better to deeply understand the rules and practice Talk/Edit on one page, than spread my misunderstandings to multiple unrelated articles. Unfortunately I'm starting to get the impression that Talk consensus is problematic because it is divisive compared to BOLD edit consensus.

You stated:

"The issues with making this edit to the Doreen Granpeesheh article, while related disputes were ongoing at Center for Autism and Related Disorders has been discussed before and I don't believe it would be useful to rehash them."

OK, but by rehash you mean you cannot provide specifics?

First, I initiated the discussion or "dispute" as you characterize it on both Talk pages. I initiated the discussion because 95% of the CARD article content which likely included 30% of my edits were recently deleted by the Other editor, who only provided a brief "promotional" reason. Consensus effort had gone into this content over the prior ten years and I felt some obligation to defend against a wholesale deletion of content.

Second, the CARD article and the Granapeesheh biography are completely different content. When you say "discussed before" it is I who initiated that discussion. Since I initiated a Talk discussion (not dispute IMO) on the CARD page, then what rule restricts me from making a completely unrelated BOLD edit change on the biography page? Also, when my biography BOLD edit was reverted I immediately started a separate discussion on the biography Talk page.

I guess my point is that I have not repeated the 3RR violation and I've made honest attempts to reach a discussion consensus on both Talk pages. So it really seems unfair to page ban me during the middle of a Talk discussion, where my comments have been polite and focused on the page content, not the Other Editor.

I will consider your proposal (1) above. It is cumbersome as you note, compared to BOLD edit consensus. MarsTrombone (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helium Network, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cerebellum (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]