User talk:71.239.82.39

WP:Blanking

Please read the guideline linked in this section header; wholesale blanking of IP user talks are discouraged. Tiderolls 18:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for reasons that on careful inspection will be seen as not involving sock puppetry or the 3 revert or any other relevant WP. To start, see Liz's comment at Black Kite's Talk page, who accurately gauges the matter. Note, as well, at that Talk page, Neil completely misrepresents the situation—as I have made clear, I reorganized text that was unsourced (at the article in question, see below), and added tags to indicate text that was unsourced, but in no case did I add unsourced material (!). This is the opposite of the direction of all of my committed academic efforts, at Wikipedia, which are to improve the verifiability of all articles I encounter. (Hence, Neil is completely disingenuous in suggesting otherwise.) For the real substance of the matter, see my discussion, including the closing point at: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_backup" Note, the discussion of this matter was ongoing when this block occurred, and was only closed after the block appeared.

First, there was never any attempt at sock puppet nonsense: As I have made the point at the administrative discussion page (referral to which was at my request), I always clearly identify myself by "Le Prof", even when I am not logged in. (Sometimes I am not able to log, for various reasons.)

Second, in re: the Nazanin Afshin-Jam site issue: I made edits to this article, which had received no attention for many months, even years. (Prior to my Talk entries today, which pre-declared the edits I was making, the last Talk entry placed is dated 2007.) My changes triggered a computational response as possible vandalism from one editor ("not dave"), even though I had explained my edits at length, prior to making them. He later apologized over this too-rapid response, see Talk at this article. Thereafter, there has been a heated discussion about appropriate manner to proceed to improve the quality of the article, where "Neil" and I, in particular, disagreed (he insisting all unsourced material must be removed, I suggesting that tagging and allowing for further editor work might suffice, given the innocuous nature of the appearing BLP material). These key, real issues are covered at the administrative page whose link was provided above.

Bottom line, someone here is over-reacting or overstepping; I was clearly identified in all my edits, and all were directed toward the result of a high quality article. We differ on how to get there, as is reasonable. To block me for insisting that, if Neil's approach is to be followed, Neil needs to be consistent and delete all unsourced material (rather than beginning to, and mucking around the top of the article, leaving the rest partially sourced) is a commitment to article quality. Either leave the material in with tags (my approach, given the wide-spread nature of unsourced innocuous BLP material at Wikipedia), or delete it all—but do not take some out, and leave the rest in without tags. My personal bottom line, I will not stand by for political, knee-jerk reacting, superficial judgment nonsense. If this persists, even for 31 hours, you will lose a faculty subject matter contributor. Please attend to this quickly, and fairly, carefully going over the full discussion of the situation, beginning at the administrative page. And acknowledge as well, while I am silenced from defending myself, others can continue to defend themselves and their positions, at any place, and so privately, and even misrepresent the situation. The system is only just if real time is taken to get at the bottom of the real history, and the real matters involved. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were indeed edit warring; that's the only issue to discuss in an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:53, 5 May 2014 (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.

Participant comments

Just FYI, I never accused you of sockpuppetry. I said on ANI that you did not violate WP:SOCK because you only registered one account and you never hid who you were when posting as an IP. -- Atama頭 23:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

And in addition, 3RR is a bright-line rule. There isn't much room for manoeuvre in terms of excuses. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 14:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

Nevertheless, the sock puppetry statement, like any such passing derogatory comment, entered into the discussion and so again made appearance, at the hands of Black Kite, where no such careful crafting made clear my innocence (see tag he added in closing the Admin page to further discussion). Things that are untrue, even when uttered under ones breath, can have staying power. Hence, if only in this small way, you can congratulate yourself on a literally superficial early comment that contributed to the overall developing situation, one that is going to lead to early retirement of this content expert, from public service at this site. Cheers, Adieu. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Except...Black Kite didn't accuse you of sockpuppetry, or state that you were socking, either. His statement simply notes that between your account and the IP who you said was you you had 10 reverts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice try for a save, Bush. "Given that the IP and LeProf are the same editor (self-admitted)…" One does not make "admissions of innocence"; the connotation is clear, as is the attempt to shape debate. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Self-admitted that you are the same editor - meaning that it is not Black Kite presuming that you are the same for the purposes of 3RR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Bush, you have great confidence in your ability to infer another's motive, with only the most brief of immersion into the matter. "Yep" indeed. Did you in fact go to the Admin and Talk and article history pages, to see what transpired? Did you note the before (LeProf) state of the article, read my preparatory Talk section about the edits planned, see what I added, and the time it consumed, then see what the "not dave" redactive edit looked like after his admitted fly-by (with mucked section headings, missing sourced text block, etc.)—then, see my initial calls, in Talk, for "not dave", and then "Neil", to stop reverting, and discuss the matter? Did you see who did what, and who reverted what, and see that after each of my reversions there appears a Talk section, yet the two opposing editors, with no article interest, could not be bothered to enter into any substantive discussion prior to acting (no article content discussion, only briefest threatening tags at personal IP)? And did you see "not dave"'s apology, see the discussion at the Admin page, including his slight to IP editors, and see the call for people to assist him—when "not dave" could have simply started discussing the matter in Talk, making suggestions to move the text in a better direction (drop some citation tags, do this, do that, anything)? No, this is all a commitment to fast, decisive superficial judgment and action (tech inspired), and after that, childish power play. Neither "not dave" nor "Neil" nor "Black Kite" have had any real interest in this article, ever. Last Talk by anyone, before me was years ago. And you and jpgordon::==( o ), with his (your?) apparent touch-and-go expression of administrative power, are also propagating what can only be called an unjust system. Have you really looked into this, weighed all WPS, all actions by editors? Is "Yep" as deep as it goes? Last plea here. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please review carefully. My apologies beforehand, I will not be littering this argument with WP: statements. I am a content matter expert, and not a Wikilawyer or even longstanding wikipedian. The issue at hand is whether an original large redactive (text-removing) edit by a fly-by Huggle-responder, if made in error, should then still be allowed as the basis of a 3 reversion block, especially when the intent and substance of the editing of the originally contributing editor (yours truly) are taken into account.

The case: the original edits were done by myself, Le Prof (71.239.82.39), and were scholarly and constructive. At no time did I add unreferenced material; instead, I moved it around, and added "citation needed" tags to unreferenced BLP text that was already in place. I stated my strategy beforehand, in Talk: to allow innocuous, positive, clearly non-libelous text to stand, to allow other editors to add citations that they should have in the first place. "not dave", responding to a Huggle ping, did a sledgehammer redactive edit of a large block of the text that I had reorganized and tagged to call for better citations. Because I reverted this destructive, sledgehammer edit, it is claimed I am guilty of adding unreferenced BLP text.

This is specious. I was returning the article to the status quo, and asking for further discussion before radical redactive changes were made to the pre-existing article. As stated, the large redactive edit removing my work was performed in response to a Huggle ping that suggested a problem (based on Huggle's superficial computational assessments). This led to a mistaken perception (as "not dave", the Huggle-responding, redactive editor has since admitted at the article Talk page), that I was vandalising, or attempting to add unsourced BLP material. Instead of discussing, "not dave" took immediate action, ignoring my extensive article Talk content written prior to my edits, explaining in detail the scope and intent of my editing. When I reverted his immediate action, I did so because it seemed automatic, and was undiscussed prior to his acting. Hence, I called for the this redacting editor to slow down, to consider the whole of the case, including the prior Talk content.

Instead, a second editor was solicited to assist, in a manner that made clear that the aim was to team up and maintain the redactive edit (and not to arrive at a fair assessment of the complete, real issues involved). Again, without discussion or dialog at the article talk page (or any substantive discussion anywhere), these two editors ignored my request for discussion, and simply and almost immediately re-reverted. In what little dialog appeared (the call at an Admin page, for additional editors to assist in reverting me), I was denigrated as editing from an IP (though I am a longstanding Wikipedia editor).

Now, if you look carefully at the article history, you will see that the text created as a result of "not dave"'s redactive edit, while removing all "citation needed" sentences, also mucked up the article—it removed section headings, removed a section with citations, etc. Bottom line, (1) the sledgehammer redactive edit went too far, and it was to this that I called attention in reverting, asking the pair of editors to slow down and give careful attention to the whole matter, and (2) of all the editors involved, it was only me (Le Prof, 71.239.82.39) that "[d]uring a dispute... first tr[ied] to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus" (see block tag content). I was the only one, at the talk page, trying to get these editors to talk about what was being done. It was the other editors that acted rashly, and forcefully.

If this were all the evidence, it perhaps would be a he-said-she-said, and not be persuasive enough. But note: While this block has gone on, one of the two editors has surreptitiously corrected many of the issues that I called attention to, during this reversion arguement—Neil re-added the section heading ("Education and Red Cross work" section), re-added the text that had some citations there, etc. Hence, Neil has undone, and admitted to undoing the mistakes that made the original "not dave" edit a sledgehammer effort, mistakes whose correction I had pushed during the reversion argument as being critically necessary.

Moreover, rather than being consistent with the original stated motivation for "not dave"'s forceful edits, his enforced strategy of removing all unreferenced BLP material (and therefore removing all remaining sentences in the article lacking citations)—Neil, instead, looked up citations and added them to the newly reintroduced "Education and..." section, so that this text would not have to be deleted. This adding of citations to the innocuous, positive (non-libelous) BLP text was precisely what I had suggested in the Talk discussion, as a viable alternative strategy to the large scale carte blanche deletion of all preexisting unreferenced innocuous sentences in the article. So, not only have the editors acknowledged that the redactive edit was unacceptable (by correcting its oversteps after having me blocked), they also have accepted my originally suggested strategy, to add references rather than deleting text (and have done this themselves, during this block). Note as of this hour, the last major paragraph of the article still appears with the "citation needed" tags I introduced; that is, someone is allowing them to remain (consistent with my original suggestions), and is adding in citations, rather than further pursuing the original redactive, sledgehammer approach.

In closing I would simply call attention to Liz's observations at Black Kite's Talk page: the scholarly editor with a commitment to good referencing, and careful discussion of changes before acting is getting slammed here, and has wasted a day of life in the process. The over-reacting Huggle responder with no prior interest in the article, and zero invested Talk time prior to, to discuss changes, is being supported. This set of superficial judgments flies in the face of many, many other WPs that were and are being ignored, including those calling for respect, and presumption of good faith. Ultimately, I cannot stand for this. Life is too short, time too precious, principles of fairness too important. The original Administrative reviewer did not look deeply at all. If the system cannot look carefully enough to see that the original redactive edit was admitted as a mistake (as rash by "not dave", and as overstepping, via Neil's cleanup, post hoc edits), and if, in seeing that the original action of the editor was thus, cannot, in light of all the prior-written Talk I gave to these edits, see that these facts should impact the three reversions block matter—if this depth of analysis and fairness are not possible here, than this is not the place for for me to do my public service as a subject matter expert.

If a mistake is made by another editor, a mistake based on Huggle misperception, a mistake on acting too quickly without due consideration, a mistake that that ignores other editor's good faith and extensive Talk, and a mistake that is admitted in varying ways—does this not impact what is a judicious use of a block, against a fellow editor? Le Prof

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. In addition, your unblock request ignores a simple fact: the "original large redactive (text-removing) edit by a fly-by Huggle-responder", even if "made in error", is not vandalism. Therefore it is not exempt from 3RR - which you went significantly past. WP:3RR is a bright-line rule; it's unfortunate that you're "getting slammed here", but nobody forced you to edit-war. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently too late to call your attention to the host of other WPs, and extenuating circumstances, that were skipped over, in creating this tempest in a teapot? This is my last chance for justice here. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2014 (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.

Good enough. (Cannot honestly say "Fair enough".) Two strikes and I am out...

Bush, your and "not dave"'s refs to the 3 reversion rule as being crystal clear here… my fanny. Sorry. This is just a self(system)-serving continuation of the initial process, which promoted a superficial view of the WPs, article history, and details of the situation. Sure, it is easier: one WP wins, all others immaterial. Ignore the apology for mistakes of the original reverting editor. Ignore the post hoc cleanup done during this block by editor Neil, to make the mucked up article look good, so as too accentuate the validity of the original intrusions to an article. Ignore that that neither "not dave" nor Neil have standing interest in, or had ever been there, except to touch down in response to my good faith efforts to improve the article. Ignore the general, fundamental disrespect of Huggle-driven knee jerk edits—here, esp., done without reading the extensive Talk pages that appeared, aforeto, explaining the edits. (Be too much to call such superficial, ignore-the-Talk, fly-by interest what it might be—as bad for Wikipedia as anything I did. Granted, "not dave" apologized for this rashness, but who cares, the mistakes I made trump his tacit "should have read your Talk" and ""should not have acted so hastily" admissions.) Bottom line, WPs on assuming good faith, and offering other editors respect, and on basic expectations of doing ones editorial work (reading Talk!) to understand a situation, before acting—all this is of far lessor import than the revert-counting dictum. Have to keep the system going. Can't admit a mistake and back down early (though you can later backtrack, and do what the other editor suggested, when no one looks on, Neil). No, have to protect the basis for power and self-esteem of the Huggle-driven, fly-by editorial crew. They are so essential. They make so many edits. Well, I for one find this philosophically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt. So, Wikiproject Chem, et al., and other citation-mucked venues, you are on your own. I have lost a day to Neil's and "not dave"'s self-interested, self-aggrandizing hubris and nonsense. Enough. Better things I can do with my public service time. Cheers. Bye. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is "not dave"'s early moment of admirable humility, that quickly lost momentum in the face of Neil's discovery of an issue to make hay over, and their success in garnering another superficial fly-by contact from Black Kite, to create the block. Huggle be praised, no thought, reading, consideration or wisdom required:

I apologise again for my initial fly-by revert. I was just heavily confused by the suave [sic.] of citation needed tags added to the article. I did not take previous edits into consideration - note that I was using the anti-vandalism program Huggle and your edit showed up in the edit queue. This doesn't infer that you are a vandal, me (a co-developer) and/or the lead developer have not invented programs that are clairvoyants - your edit just showed up in the queue because of the high amount of citation needed tags, as well as the lack of an edit summary (your edit is assigned a score that prioritises what edit I see first and vice versa). Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC) [ See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazanin_Afshin-Jam, Section "Note in Removing…" ]

I'm sorry you feel this way. It does not, however, change the fact that even with the initial revert having been in error, it was not vandalism - and that you chose to edit-war over it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see above for my final plea, for something more than a standard, one-WP, touch-and-go Wikipedia response; rather for something amounting at an attempt at a truly just, all-WPs-considered assessment. While this is not law, it is legalism, and if there must be a place for extenuating and aggravating circumstances. On principle, because I believe it just, I am asking for my access reopened, before the 31 hour point. If "sorry" is more than a passing palliative, you will do the work to parse this out. You Admins are all we have, and at this stage, my last gamble on there being value in this system. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There are both extenuating and aggravating circumstances, indeed. But one of the major components you seem to be missing is the collegial, consensus-based social contract the Wikipedia community adheres to. We're particularly touchy about edit warring, as it causes instability in the articles and bad will among editors. So, to prevent disruption and damage to the encyclopedia and our community, we stop edit wars as soon as we see them happening, and there are very few exceptions (for example, it's not edit warring if there is WP:VANDALISM involved; it's not edit warring if the problematic edits are in a small number of categories, most particularly involving biographies of living persons; but it usually is edit warring if you happen to think you are right but someone else just happens to disagree. And these policies need to be universal to work; I've been editing Wikipedia for almost a decade, and if I decide to edit war to get my way in an article, I'll be blocked as quickly as someone who started editing and edit warring yesterday. But I don't think anyone pointed out to you one little thing: if you'd simply said, "Oh! I'll stop edit warring" you'd be unblocked immediately. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, for reasons inexplicable, you seem to have missed forest for trees. I was the one who came to the article to edit, pre-announcing in Talk everything I did; the other two editors, first to revert and later seeking the block defied all earlier calls to discuss, and acted with individual overarching authority, without engaging this academic. Who missed the point of collegiality here, the dedicated editor, or the Huggle-driven fly-by, reverting pair? Moreover—how could you and your Admin colleague, Bush, missed this—the call at the Admin page to block me came after I added a few citation added tags. The reversions had ceased. Check the dialog—my additional edits irritated "not dave", and he asked, could we block him, and then someone did. No reverting was going on. I placed those tags, and a further series of talk messages, to indicate the continuing inconsistency of these fly-by editors' "we-trump-you" efforts, and the resulting poor article state resulting from these two fly-by responders. I noted above that Neil had been surreptitiously adding citations during the block period, rather than persist in redacting further large chunks of unreferenced text (his initially championed approach). Compare the four complete references I placed, nos. 9-12, to the poorest of poor ones added quickly by Neil during this block period, to avoid having to delete these whole sections of text (see his refs 1 (thrice appearing), and 3-7, 14, 15, and 17); earlier, his argument was to fully redact the text, and not leave time for references to be found. Now that there is scrutiny, he removes my block-worthy, warring "citation needed" tags, and adds quickly googled citations. Something is truly rotten in Denmark, and it is not my approach or efforts. Again, does no one actually look into these issues? Why are there no interrogatories? (Questions asked of each side, especially the accused offending party?)

What I need is not an essay or brief on Wikipedia aims (of policy and practice). I have watched and practiced here long enough to well understand these. And I have discussed their philosophical conundrums, broadly, from bottom to top of this organization. What I need, is someone who cares enough about fundamental justice, to review the whole of the situation, and taking all WPs, all personalities, and all elements of the timeline into account, to render some semblance of an informed decision. There is no evidence from the one liners I have received in response, that anyone has given this any more than a cursory glance and your indication that you were unaware of the point in the timeline that the block occurred reinforces this perception. I have lost two days of my break that I would normally be doing my Wikipedia public service work. Primarily on chemistry articles, but in this case, a human rights sidebar (Nazanin Fatehi) took me to this second celebrity Nazanin article, which, on finding it a mess, I tried to improve. But I have said all this before.

I conclude the block/unblock, and Administrative review processes are just as capricious and clique-driven as the general editing environments, and that there is no prevailing organizational consistency or substance here, either. I take this—your and the earlier Admin failing to suss that the block was post hoc, long after reverting had ended, and in response to irritation, and not real continuing reverting/warring—as a final straw. There is no real justice here, just superficial side-taking, and legalisms that do not care to approach justice. The 31st hour point is approaching, and, alas, the organization is turning in another blank exam paper. When a student could care less, I withdraw my time and efforts, as a waste with too great an opportunity cost; with organizations, all the more. In a few short hours, test is over. This time, once and for all. Adieu. Le Prof