This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Tawana Brawley rape allegationsEdit

@Display name 99: Hi Display name 99, I'm MagicatthemovieS. You might remember me - you passed my nomination of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife as a good article. Since we work well together, I was wondering f you might like to check out two articles which I recently nominated to reach good article status - Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Tawana Brawley rape allegations. Let me know if you are interested in either article or both of them.

Thanks, ~ MagicatthemovieS

Andrew Jackson revisitedEdit

Undid your reversion because it appears to have been performed in error—the passage in question concerns Andrew Jackson, not John C. Calhoun.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 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) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020Edit

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or may be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, I missed the part where I was supposed to give a damn. Display name 99 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

John C. Breckinridge scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the John C. Breckinridge article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 16, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 16, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI NoticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--— The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


As you've presumably noticed, I've indefinitely blocked you for this comment, which I assume you realize was beyond the pale by any standard. As I've said at ANI, and made clear in the block log as well, this is explicitly indefinite in the sense of "for an indefinite period" not "for ever", and as soon as you can convince anyone that tempers have cooled down I give leave to anyone to lift this block.

To be clear, I am not blocking you for your political views. Wikipedia is a broad church, and support for Donald Trump is certainly not a fringe view (as 70-ish million voters testify). Indeed, even if it were a fringe view it would still not be block-worthy; we have numerous editors who are open supporters of terrorist groups, violent nationalist/separatist movements, groups which are widely considered racist, left- and right-wing extremism, and so on. What differs here is that these editors appreciate that they're sharing the site with people who don't share their opinions.

In my view, the comment linked above, and the other comments mentioned at the ANI thread, cross over a line. In my view they're potentially intimidating people who don't share your views from participating in discussions, and what's more important you were aware that they were potentially intimidating people who don't share your views from participating in discussions, and as such are unacceptable.

These are heated times, and given your history I have no reason to doubt that you're here in good faith and that recent events have been a one-off episode stemming from frustration rather than malice on your part. While I can't speak for the other participants in that thread, I certainly don't want to lose you provided you're willing to tone it down and respect other people's views even when you disagree with them. ‑ Iridescent 05:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message Iridescent. I'm not sure if we've ever directly interacted before, but I recognize your username from somewhere. I have not been trying to intimidate anyone from participating in discussions. Rather, that very thing has been what happens to any editors who happen to express conservative views on Wikipedia. I'm not a supporter of Trump; I disapprove of many of his policies and I voted write-in in the recent election. But I am a paleoconservative nationalist, and while I do not need to get into specifics, many of the beliefs that I hold are indeed fringe. Your statements to the contrary not withstanding, many editors in the thread stated that they did not want people editing Wikipedia who held fringe views, even if they completely avoided modern political topics. Your position is that which is in line with Wikipedia guidelines, but theirs has a large following.
Nearly every editor who voted in the discussion who did not support an indefinite block called for a topic ban on post-1932 American politics. As stated, this is something that I would refuse to abide by. It would be an insult to edit Wikipedia under such a sanction because I have not done anything wrong. I had assumed that making this statement would lead editors who had supported a topic ban to change their votes to supporting indefinite blocks, and an adminstrator would then follow the consensus and block me. Of course, things turned out a little differently than I had planned, that of course being my fault, but I was still blocked in the end, which I don't mind at all considering that the alternative was to edit under an insulting and dishonorable sanction.
I have no intention of ever editing Wikipedia again. I would rather leave on my own terms, as I feel I have done, than be indignified with a restriction which I did nothing to deserve. Display name 99 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know youEdit

DN99, I don't think we have ever interacted. I hate to see a long time editor who clearly has an enviable editing record get chewed up and spit out. I think something that is being left out of many discussions is that real people on all side of the political spectrum are very frustrated these days. I think this is made far worse with COVID and the impact it and the restrictions have had on all our lives. I looked at your offending comment. I don't agree but I can certainly see how a person could feel that way. Anyway, I would hate to see an editor who's record far surpasses my own burn out and leave. I hope that a bit of time will help heal all this and we can pull some of the emotions back and people can be a bit more dispassionate about these topics. Take a break, don't do anything you wouldn't do in person* or will regret later. I hope you aren't going for good. *I say that but I doubt I would be willing to make a comment like this in person. As someone told me, stay safe and stay sane. The latter is probably the harder one. Springee (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee, thank you for your note. I appreciate you taking the time to write it out. I have no intention of returning to editing. There were a considerable number of people, I'd say slightly under half of all respondents, who were calling for an indefinite block even before I made the comment which ultimately resulted in me getting one. Nearly everyone else wanted a topic ban. I recognize that I likely could have saved my editing future by promsing to abide by a topic ban. I would not do that because it would be a humiliation to edit under an unjust sanction. Perhaps I even could have avoided the topic ban with an apology or a voluntary promise to step away from political articles for a while. However, I did not feel that I had done anything to warrant that. Accepting an indefinite block and stepping away is the only way to keep my honor in tact. I have no intention of asking for it to be lifted. Best, Display name 99 (talk)
Per what Springee said. We've never interacted, but I've seen it all too well. I'm sure you have also. Long-term constructive editors blocked for something so trivial. Just one small outburst from you and then blocked indefinitely. It seems Wikipedia isn't much of a safe place anymore for people who's views differ from others. Anyways, thank you for all of your contributions. Goodbye friend and please do keep safe and sane. I'm sure you can do it, after all, you did last this long editing. Jerm (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Jerm. That said, as I already explained, I was headed towards an indefinite block even before the outburst. This is because a large number of editors believed that expressing controversial opinions on talk pages was grounds for an indefinite block with no prior warning, and even those who didn't mostly thought that it was grounds for an immediate topic ban. My coffin was already built; my quickly-deleted outburst was just the nail. I appreciate the message and I wish you all the best. Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


Thank you today for John C. Breckinridge, who "was an American statesman who served as vice president in the administration of James Buchanan. Though he had previously taken a moderate view on slavery, Breckinridge eventually came to believe that the Kansas Territory should legalize it before becoming a state. He was nominated by the Southern wing of the Democratic Party for president in 1860. He lost to Lincoln. He eventually ended up serving as a Confederate major general and as the Confederacy's final secretary of war."! -- Bad timing, it seems. I didn't follow the above story, saw only the top of the iceberg. I'd miss you, but perhaps check in in a year. I gave up my pride and appealed after two years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the note Gerda Arendt. I didn't even realize that the Breckinridge article was today's featured article. That's interesting timing indeed... Display name 99 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)