User talk:BlueSalix: Difference between revisions
Declining unblock request |
|||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
== request for unblock == |
== request for unblock == |
||
{{unblock reviewed | 1='''Short Version'''<br/> After six years on Wikipedia I have been suddenly, and indefinitely, blocked for "stalking" [[User:Justeditingtoday|Justeditingtoday]] and violating [[WP:PRIMARY]]. Here is the editor interaction report covering my and Justeditingtoday's career on Wikipedia: [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Justeditingtoday&users=BlueSalix&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] I think a link to the interaction report alone should disabuse the notion that I've been stalking him or her, however, to be thorough, I will offer a fuller description of events, which follows. '''Long Version'''<Br/> Background - violation of [[WP:HARASSMENT]]: :For the first time ever, today, I interacted with Justeditingtoday. The interaction was initiated by him or her when he/she redirected an article I'd authored [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Dao&diff=774974356&oldid=774974229]. Until 30 minutes ago, the extent of our interaction was in that article and its associated discussion pages. :In preparation for filing a 3RR report I checked Justeditingtoday's edit history and saw he/she was purging vast quantities of RS from disability law-related articles (essentially any peer-reviewed journal authored by a [[University of Queensland|UQ]] academic who specializes in disability access legislation named Paul Harpur). Seeing that dozens of high-quality RS were being removed sans discussion I proceeded to make exactly one (1) revert to an edit Justeditingtoday made (here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Social_model_of_disability&diff=prev&oldid=775021087]) and exactly one (1) comment on a directly related Sockpuppet discussion he/she'd initiated (here: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp]]); in other words, a total of two (2) edits on a single topic. :That is the full and entire extent of BlueSalix-initiated interaction with Justeditingtoday in either mainspace or article/policy discussion pages, a fact verifiable by review of the interaction log. Background - violation of [[WP:PRIMARY]]: :In addition to stalking, the blocking admin also stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlueSalix&diff=775023558&oldid=775022644] I was being indeffed for creating an article that <span class="example good-example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #006400;" >"relied on nothing but primary sources"</span>. Here is the version of the article in question as it existed when I created it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Dao&oldid=774974184]. It references four (4) sources as follows: [[Reuters]], the ''[[American City Business Journals|Chicago Business Journal]], [[People Magazine]]'', [[ABC News]]. A Wikipedia admin should know what a [[WP:PRIMARY]] is and know that neither [[Reuters]], ''Chicago Business Journal, [[People Magazine]]'', nor [[ABC News]] are PRIMARY (let alone all of them). Reason for unblock: # The standard for [[WP:HARASSMENT]] is <span class="example good-example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #006400;" >"the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on '''multiple''' pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work."</span> As evidenced, I did not join multiple topics, I ''joined'' one (1) topic Justeditingtoday was editing and made two (2) edits in that topic. In neither a literal nor spirited reading of our policy can ''two (2) edits'' in a single topic meet the high standard to prove stalking. Further, my ''two (2) edits'' were not done to "inhibit their work" as, by the standard of a reasonable person, there is a fairly destructive spree of vandalism into which my ''two (2) edits'' were attempting to intervene. # I have demonstrated the blocking admin's second reason for the indef, my violation of [[WP:PRIMARY]], is materially false and/or incorrect. | decline = * Before I say anything else, I will mention that your listing of several administrators and asking them to "review" this was probably an unwise step, especially doing so together with the remark "it appears they may have some background with the blocking admin's previously reverted 'fast blocks'". That could be interpreted as an attempt to get a favourable review by choosing to have your unblock request reviewed by an administrator who you think is likely to be opposed to the blocking administrator on the basis of their having disagreed with him in the past. If that were what you intended, it would be a particularly bad kind of [[WP:ADMINSHOP|admin shopping]], and would be further reason for keeping the block, if it were anywhere near to being a borderline decision. * That said, it was not a borderline decision. I have mad extensive checks of the relevant editing history, and what I saw did not support your interpretation at all. For example, at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp]] you posted a fairly long message which was '''100%''' an ad hominem attack on Justeditingtoday, with no attempt at all to make any contribution to the discussion of the actions of the editor about whom the report was filed. That was not the action of someone who because of discovering disruptive editing by an editor has checked that person's editing history and made legitimate edits on unrelated matters because of further problematic edits that emerged in that history: in the context of your other editing it is the action of someone out to oppose and attack another editor out of infantile revenge. Then there is the edit-warring warning. You did not say on what page the edit-warring was supposed to be taking place, so I have had to spend considerable time checking through every page that Justeditingtoday had recently edited. There was no edit-warring by Justeditingtoday on any of them. Those are just two examples of your approach to that editor, but there was more. The block was fully justified on those grounds alone. * On the other part of the block reasons, not only did you edit-war but you even included a 3RR warning in an edit summary on one of your edits in that edit-war, indicating unambiguously that you were fully aware of the situation. Block justified on those grounds alone. * Two separate reasons each of which would justify a block = more than sufficient grounds * That leaves the question of whether the block should have been indefinite. The answer to that is that your past editing history and block log show that both this kind of vindictiveness to editors you disagree with and edit-warring are things you have been doing for years, and that neither talk page messages from other editors, discussions of your behaviour on notice boards, nor blocks have any effect on discouraging such disruptive editing, so there is no reason whatever to suppose that this time it would be different, and a limited block would persuade you to change your approach. Enough is enough. Moreover, what you have said in this unblock request confirms that you are not going to change your approach: far from acknowledging the problems with your editing and undertake to change, you deny that there are problems. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 09:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{unblock|reason= |
|||
'''Short Version'''<br/> |
|||
After six years on Wikipedia I have been suddenly, and indefinitely, blocked for "stalking" [[User:Justeditingtoday|Justeditingtoday]] and violating [[WP:PRIMARY]]. Here is the editor interaction report covering my and Justeditingtoday's career on Wikipedia: [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Justeditingtoday&users=BlueSalix&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] |
|||
I think a link to the interaction report alone should disabuse the notion that I've been stalking him or her, however, to be thorough, I will offer a fuller description of events, which follows. |
|||
'''Long Version'''<Br/> |
|||
Background - violation of [[WP:HARASSMENT]]: |
|||
:For the first time ever, today, I interacted with Justeditingtoday. The interaction was initiated by him or her when he/she redirected an article I'd authored [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Dao&diff=774974356&oldid=774974229]. Until 30 minutes ago, the extent of our interaction was in that article and its associated discussion pages. |
|||
:In preparation for filing a 3RR report I checked Justeditingtoday's edit history and saw he/she was purging vast quantities of RS from disability law-related articles (essentially any peer-reviewed journal authored by a [[University of Queensland|UQ]] academic who specializes in disability access legislation named Paul Harpur). Seeing that dozens of high-quality RS were being removed sans discussion I proceeded to make exactly one (1) revert to an edit Justeditingtoday made (here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Social_model_of_disability&diff=prev&oldid=775021087]) and exactly one (1) comment on a directly related Sockpuppet discussion he/she'd initiated (here: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp]]); in other words, a total of two (2) edits on a single topic. |
|||
:That is the full and entire extent of BlueSalix-initiated interaction with Justeditingtoday in either mainspace or article/policy discussion pages, a fact verifiable by review of the interaction log. |
|||
Background - violation of [[WP:PRIMARY]]: |
|||
:In addition to stalking, the blocking admin also stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlueSalix&diff=775023558&oldid=775022644] I was being indeffed for creating an article that {{Xt|"relied on nothing but primary sources"}}. Here is the version of the article in question as it existed when I created it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Dao&oldid=774974184]. It references four (4) sources as follows: [[Reuters]], the ''[[American City Business Journals|Chicago Business Journal]], [[People Magazine]]'', [[ABC News]]. A Wikipedia admin should know what a [[WP:PRIMARY]] is and know that neither [[Reuters]], ''Chicago Business Journal, [[People Magazine]]'', nor [[ABC News]] are PRIMARY (let alone all of them). |
|||
Reason for unblock: |
|||
# The standard for [[WP:HARASSMENT]] is {{xt|"the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on '''multiple''' pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work."}} As evidenced, I did not join multiple topics, I ''joined'' one (1) topic Justeditingtoday was editing and made two (2) edits in that topic. In neither a literal nor spirited reading of our policy can ''two (2) edits'' in a single topic meet the high standard to prove stalking. Further, my ''two (2) edits'' were not done to "inhibit their work" as, by the standard of a reasonable person, there is a fairly destructive spree of vandalism into which my ''two (2) edits'' were attempting to intervene. |
|||
# I have demonstrated the blocking admin's second reason for the indef, my violation of [[WP:PRIMARY]], is materially false and/or incorrect.}} |
|||
I am requesting [[User:Coffee|Coffee]], [[User:Sphilbrick|Sphilbrick]], [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] or [[User:AniMate|AniMate]] review this, and/or escalate if needed, since it appears they may have some background with the blocking admin's previously reverted "fast blocks". [[User:BlueSalix|BlueSalix]] ([[User talk:BlueSalix#top|talk]]) 06:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC) |
I am requesting [[User:Coffee|Coffee]], [[User:Sphilbrick|Sphilbrick]], [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] or [[User:AniMate|AniMate]] review this, and/or escalate if needed, since it appears they may have some background with the blocking admin's previously reverted "fast blocks". [[User:BlueSalix|BlueSalix]] ([[User talk:BlueSalix#top|talk]]) 06:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:49, 12 April 2017
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of David Dao for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Dao 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/David Dao until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Justeditingtoday (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Blocked
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Justeditingtoday (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have restored your indefinite block. Having checked the diffs provided by Justeditingtoday, I agree with his interpretation of those diffs, and having checked several page histories that he didn't link, I see confirmation of his claims. Stalking another editor in revenge for the other editor's actions is reprehensible, it's compounded because you misrepresented others' actions as edit-warring despite your own actions, and the whole time your edit war was an attempt to enforce the existence of an article relying on nothing but primary sources. You're welcome to request unblock, of course, but unless you're doing that, I suggest that you make no edits to this talk page: when you've gotten yourself a second indef block, abuse is likely to result in a speedy removal of talk page access. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
request for unblock
BlueSalix (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Short Version
After six years on Wikipedia I have been suddenly, and indefinitely, blocked for "stalking" Justeditingtoday and violating WP:PRIMARY. Here is the editor interaction report covering my and Justeditingtoday's career on Wikipedia: [1] I think a link to the interaction report alone should disabuse the notion that I've been stalking him or her, however, to be thorough, I will offer a fuller description of events, which follows. Long Version
Background - violation of WP:HARASSMENT: :For the first time ever, today, I interacted with Justeditingtoday. The interaction was initiated by him or her when he/she redirected an article I'd authored [2]. Until 30 minutes ago, the extent of our interaction was in that article and its associated discussion pages. :In preparation for filing a 3RR report I checked Justeditingtoday's edit history and saw he/she was purging vast quantities of RS from disability law-related articles (essentially any peer-reviewed journal authored by a UQ academic who specializes in disability access legislation named Paul Harpur). Seeing that dozens of high-quality RS were being removed sans discussion I proceeded to make exactly one (1) revert to an edit Justeditingtoday made (here: [3]) and exactly one (1) comment on a directly related Sockpuppet discussion he/she'd initiated (here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp); in other words, a total of two (2) edits on a single topic. :That is the full and entire extent of BlueSalix-initiated interaction with Justeditingtoday in either mainspace or article/policy discussion pages, a fact verifiable by review of the interaction log. Background - violation of WP:PRIMARY: :In addition to stalking, the blocking admin also stated [4] I was being indeffed for creating an article that "relied on nothing but primary sources". Here is the version of the article in question as it existed when I created it: [5]. It references four (4) sources as follows: Reuters, the Chicago Business Journal, People Magazine, ABC News. A Wikipedia admin should know what a WP:PRIMARY is and know that neither Reuters, Chicago Business Journal, People Magazine, nor ABC News are PRIMARY (let alone all of them). Reason for unblock: # The standard for WP:HARASSMENT is "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." As evidenced, I did not join multiple topics, I joined one (1) topic Justeditingtoday was editing and made two (2) edits in that topic. In neither a literal nor spirited reading of our policy can two (2) edits in a single topic meet the high standard to prove stalking. Further, my two (2) edits were not done to "inhibit their work" as, by the standard of a reasonable person, there is a fairly destructive spree of vandalism into which my two (2) edits were attempting to intervene. # I have demonstrated the blocking admin's second reason for the indef, my violation of WP:PRIMARY, is materially false and/or incorrect.
Decline reason:
- Before I say anything else, I will mention that your listing of several administrators and asking them to "review" this was probably an unwise step, especially doing so together with the remark "it appears they may have some background with the blocking admin's previously reverted 'fast blocks'". That could be interpreted as an attempt to get a favourable review by choosing to have your unblock request reviewed by an administrator who you think is likely to be opposed to the blocking administrator on the basis of their having disagreed with him in the past. If that were what you intended, it would be a particularly bad kind of admin shopping, and would be further reason for keeping the block, if it were anywhere near to being a borderline decision. * That said, it was not a borderline decision. I have mad extensive checks of the relevant editing history, and what I saw did not support your interpretation at all. For example, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp you posted a fairly long message which was 100% an ad hominem attack on Justeditingtoday, with no attempt at all to make any contribution to the discussion of the actions of the editor about whom the report was filed. That was not the action of someone who because of discovering disruptive editing by an editor has checked that person's editing history and made legitimate edits on unrelated matters because of further problematic edits that emerged in that history: in the context of your other editing it is the action of someone out to oppose and attack another editor out of infantile revenge. Then there is the edit-warring warning. You did not say on what page the edit-warring was supposed to be taking place, so I have had to spend considerable time checking through every page that Justeditingtoday had recently edited. There was no edit-warring by Justeditingtoday on any of them. Those are just two examples of your approach to that editor, but there was more. The block was fully justified on those grounds alone. * On the other part of the block reasons, not only did you edit-war but you even included a 3RR warning in an edit summary on one of your edits in that edit-war, indicating unambiguously that you were fully aware of the situation. Block justified on those grounds alone. * Two separate reasons each of which would justify a block = more than sufficient grounds * That leaves the question of whether the block should have been indefinite. The answer to that is that your past editing history and block log show that both this kind of vindictiveness to editors you disagree with and edit-warring are things you have been doing for years, and that neither talk page messages from other editors, discussions of your behaviour on notice boards, nor blocks have any effect on discouraging such disruptive editing, so there is no reason whatever to suppose that this time it would be different, and a limited block would persuade you to change your approach. Enough is enough. Moreover, what you have said in this unblock request confirms that you are not going to change your approach: far from acknowledging the problems with your editing and undertake to change, you deny that there are problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
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 am requesting Coffee, Sphilbrick, JamesBWatson or AniMate review this, and/or escalate if needed, since it appears they may have some background with the blocking admin's previously reverted "fast blocks". BlueSalix (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)