User talk:KU2018

I am mainly active on weekdays late morning/early afternoon (British time). I manage the content of Kingston University IP talk pages - feel free to discuss any issues so I can deal with them. KU2018 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, KU2018, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —Paleo Neonate – 04:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

RT fails our test for sourcing. Per WP:RS, sources must be all of reliable, independent and secondary. RT is not reliable. Neither is Breitbart. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Breitbart News, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. DO NOT CHANGE without consensus. See Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 3#Survey: Should Breitbart be described as far-right in the lead? - MrX 13:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a valid reason: The text is blatant libel - No place on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia consensus decided that Bush did 9/11, it would still be defamatory! We may need an uninvolved administrator to remove all traces of the legally troublesome text. KU2018 (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the linked discussion? At least 40 reliable sources describe Breitbart as Far-Right. If you think it's libel, please pursue it with those sources. Please be mindful of Wikipedia:No legal threats.- MrX 13:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a legal threat - did not mean it in that way. I had a look at the discussion and there was no consensus that the term 'far right' should be used like it is. There were more Opposes than Supports. The majority of articles claiming that Breitbart is far right are op-eds! The majority of op-eds try to show Donald Trump in a negative light, but we do not call Donald Trump a bad person, as the Breitbart article is with absolutely no context in the text, such as 'Breitbart is described as far-right. KU2018 (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count votes; we evaluate the strength of the arguments as they relate to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.- MrX 13:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I had a look at the discussion and there was no consensus that the term 'far right' should be used like it is. There were more Opposes than Supports. You are lying, either about reading the discussions or about what you found in those discussions. I was involved in a large number of those discussions, and they all had very clear outcomes. In that case, there were 14 editors supporting inclusion of the term, and only 10 opposing. Habitually lying about easily verifiable information is one characteristic of new editors who quickly get indefinitely banned, especially when they have such a narrow topical focus as you (see WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW). Also, please read WP:CONSENSUS. Even if you were not lying about the count of editors, consensus is not a vote.

Also, see Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 4#Right wing, Far right or both?, which rejected adding additional terms to "soften the blow", Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 4#Far Right as a description of Breitbart? where a much more experienced editor than you attempted to make the same exact argument you have made here and failed horribly, Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 4#Biased source where a somewhat less experienced editor tried the same tact and ended up topic banned, Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 3#Compromise_language:_"right-wing" and Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 3#Survey: Presenting far-right as an accusation, more complaints about the term that got nowhere and finally see Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 2#Misleading description of far right site as "politically conservative" and Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 2#Self identification as alt-right for some background as to how "far-right" became established in the lede (mostly due to Breitbart's shifting political position and an increase in deceptive journalistic practices). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I am not sure how you can 'soften the blow' from the text appearing in the first line of the article without any qualification or context (which dubiously asserts the text as an unquestionable fact. I am not here to edit war or anything like that, but to remove false assertions. There is a new discussion taking place. The fact that there have been so many 'split down the middle' discussions demonstrate not only is there no consensus to add far right, but there was never at any point consensus. KU2018 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:IDHT, as well. Believe it or not, the editors commenting here are trying to help you avoid getting yourself in trouble and ending up topic banned or blocked from editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should not be topic banned. I am stating the case for why Breitbart should not be considered far right. I have the right to do this, as do people with the opposite opinion to mine.

This policy states that you should get to the point once consensus has been reached. I am arguing (1) that consuensus was never reached and (2) The wording of far right is dubious. Why should I not be able to do this? KU2018 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 14/10 thing was not intentional - it did not count properly. 58% with clear argument both ways is not consensus KU2018 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right to make an argument; you do not have the right to make demands on other editors as you did in this edit summary. You do not have the right to lie about the results of past discussions, you do not have the right to willfully misrepresent what our policies and practices are, and you do not have the right to continue to push arguments that have clearly been rejected numerous times before to the disruption of this project. Tangentially, you do not have the right to edit wikipedia with a particular political agenda as your guiding principle; something which is very clear from your editing history. Also, please start indenting your comments appropriately; because you do not have the right to expect the rest of us to continue to do it for you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The false statement was unintentional (apologies), the arguments before were not clearly rejected, which is a fundamental part of my argument. I am a moderate by the way, I am not right wing (fairly liberal to be honest). The reason I do this is I feel some articles give more precedence to arguments from the left than the right, with right wing articles shown in a more negative way. I just do this for neutrality. A lot more of op-ed mainstream articles are from a left wing viewpoint than a right, which to me appear to be relayed on Wikipedia as facts rather than opinions. I am not here to disrupt Wikipedia in any way at all. Also, you talk about me not having the right to tell editors what to do. So by that logic, why do you think you have the right to make demands left right and centre to me? KU2018 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, I'll answer that last question: Because I know exactly what the current consensus on these issues is, and because I'm actually giving you strongly worded advice, not making demands. You are free to ignore me, but you do so "at your own peril".

Take 30 minutes and carefully read the links I gave you in the second paragraph of my first comment above. All of the arguments you have presented have been rejected before, by numerous editors (including me). This is not my first rodeo. Indeed, this is not my first time on this particular bull. I am intimately familiar with all of the sources and all of the past discussions about the political leanings of Breitbart, including details which escape many of the other experienced editors here For example: Breitbart has generally been strongly opposed to "birtherism", and has always been strongly supportive of Israel, despite frequent claims of the opposite, some of which even appear in the reliable sources, though not uncontested, of course.

I was very serious above when I said that I would prefer to help you avoid trouble. We need more good editors, and we need more good, thoughtful editors with conservative political views. Too many conservative editors have been trolls or just incompetent, and the admin's efforts to remove trolls and incompetent editors has helped breed an atmosphere which can be hostile to conservative editors (though our content does not seem to suffer much). I want more conservative editors contributing thoughtfully, intelligently and knowledgeably to our political articles. But brand new editors who claim to know policy better than veteran editors, brand new editors who create conflicts by jumping in head first into highly contested subjects, editors of any experience level who make repeated false statements (whether intentionally or not; and I am perfectly willing to accept your explanation of the miscount above) and editors who push notions which are out of step with the reliable sources (that Breitbart is not far-right, for example) do not last long, and do not tend to make meaningful contributions while they are here.

So please, listen to my advice. Responding to me is not important, but reading all those pages that I and others have is. Please read them, and start asking questions instead of making demands and arguing. You really don't have a firm grasp of policy (which is perfectly understandable) and community norms to tackle an issue like this and accomplish anything except shooting yourself in the foot, or souring yourself on editing. Those of us with more experience will be happy to answer questions and provide guidance. And while we're on the subject, I'll be leaving a notice for you in a new section below. I want to state (even though it is said in the notice) that this does not imply any wrongdoing on your part, but is simply letting you know. Please read it carefully. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will leave it. I very strongly disagree with the outcome of the discussions and how there were applied, but I am happy to walk away from this argument. It probably is the right thing to do. Thanks for your advice. KU2018 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to "walk away", just try to take a less confrontational approach. If there is anything I can do to help you understand why those discussions had the outcome they did, please ask. I thoroughly enjoy helping new editors get up to speed, and will happily answer questions at length. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is mainly to do with the fact that opinion pieces are being asserted as fact when they come from reliable sources. I do not believe it can be objectively said that Breitbart are right wing - nor do I think they fall into that category - I think that is reserved largely for the Nazi's and the KKK - quite a narrow definition. I do not agree with some of the stuff they say, I would not call myself conservative but I just believe lot of the mainstream: op-ed's, as well as cable news (CNN+MSNBC) to be left leaning, using emotive, forceful arguments to assert the moral high ground. I think this is done because they feel they have a duty to make us think in a certain way (acting in good faith with institutional bias), especially in relation to social issues. If these sources are doing this - according to Wikipedia's policies it has to follow these sources. I think this is problematic. What are your views on this? KU2018 (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that people are ashamed of and try to hide what Breitbart is proud of. They are openly right-wing and are rabidly against anything left-wing. (That last part is a big clue about their orientation and place on the left/right political spectrum.) Why hide it?

Nazis and KKK are just a bit more extreme right-wing, but close enough that they love Breitbart because it carries water for them. Bannon and Breitbart (deceased) are very racist and anti-Muslim. Only 3% got their news from Breitbart in 10/21/14. That's extreme right-wing and very far from center. Only a few outlets are more extreme, among them Hannity, Beck, and Infowars. Now that we have a racist president who likes Fox News, Breitbart, and Infowars, I suspect that the number of clueless people who use those sources has increased. That's really sad.

No wonder research has shown that Trump spews out more misinformation than actual fake news sources:

"It feels like there’s a connection between having an active portion of a party that’s prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you’re describing.

"It’s worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it’s also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."

BullRangifer (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is going to take a bit, so let me break your comments down to individual points. I'll be using talkpage quote formatting, but paraphrasing your comments into questions, so please say something if you think I've misunderstood something you said.

Can opinion pieces be used to assert a fact?

In short, yes. The longer answer is that the context is important. In this case, not all of those sources actually are opinion pieces. See this archived thread for where I discussed this with another editor in somewhat more detail. But even if it were just opinion pieces, we could use them to assert a fact if there's no disagreement among the reliable sources. In this case, no reliable sources have ever been presented which argue that Breitbart is not far right. Many have been presented which label Breitbart "conservative" or "right-wing", but that's simply using less specificity, not contesting "far-right". It's a normal practice for mainstream news outlets to tone down the rhetoric a bit before publication.

Can it be objectively stated that any outlet is "right-wing"?

Again, yes. While the borders of the various political descriptions can be nebulous or unclear, it remains clear that there is a political spectrum. This can be seen objectively by researching (here on WP or among reliable sources on the subject) what is meant by terms such as "right-wing". Good resources will present a number of positions taken by right-wing parties on a number of issues, and these can be objectively compared to those positions taken by a given outlet to see if they have a political leaning. In this case, Breitbart checks off a large number of the positions which are widely described as being part of the far-right wing political movement in the US.

Can an outlet be lumped into the same group as Nazis and the KKK if they're not overtly racist?

Not exactly, and we don't exactly group Breitbart with them. Overt racism is one of the features of far-right politics, though these days racists have become grouped together into the "alt-right". You will notice that Breitbart -despite playing a prominent role in the explosive growth of the alt-right during the previous presidential election- is not currently labelled as being a part of it. That is because Breitbart has intentionally distanced itself from the alt-right, and has espoused views which are mutually exclusive to a number of alt-right views, such as their support of Israel. Not everyone on the far-right is racist, and while many in the US think so, it's a view that is (quite rightfully) offensive to some on the far-right.

Aren't a lot of the mainstream: op-ed's, as well as cable news (CNN+MSNBC) left leaning?, And don't they use emotive, forceful arguments to assert the moral high ground?

In the context of American Politics, yes. Many mainstream news outlets are "left" leaning. In an international context, the US doesn't really have much of a political left-wing. America is much more conservative than the majority of the developed world, including other nations generally known for their conservatism, such as Japan and Turkey. The political leanings of American mainstream media is generally more centrist than left-wing, though it does have a discernible center-left component with outlets like Mother Jones, the Huffington Post and Media Matters for America.

And yes; all media uses emotive, forceful arguments to advance their own political views in op-eds. Breitbart is particularly notable for this, it's just a feature of news media. For dispassionate, unemotive analysis, try checking out NPR, the BBC and the most prominent fact checking organizations, like Politifact and Factcheck.org.

Isn't it a problem for WP's policies to force us to use biased sources for reporting on these issues?

Indeed, it is. However, it's a problem with no clear solution. Believe me, many of us have tried. There is a conservative admin with whom I've had many discussions about how to approach this issue, and we've never been able to work out a solution that doesn't make the project less accurate. That being said, it's not an insurmountable problem. We have policies in place to help mitigate the effects of using opinionated, biased media. Most notably, we tend to have a bit of a back-and-forth whenever possible, using both left- and right-leaning media outlets to source our articles. This works best on controversies, and not so well on articles about those media outlets, as the only outlets writing about each other are almost always diametrically opposed. Breitbart is a bit of an edge case; they have such a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking that even politically neutral and moderately conservative outlets have written critiques of them.

Another factor is the discretionary sanctions outlined in the section below: by enforcing strict conduct rules (such as; only permitting 1 revert per day per editor, requiring explicit consensus to reinstate controversial edits and others), we can level the playing field between a majority and a minority group of editors, helping to ensure that the best arguments win out, and not simply the side with the most voices.

One more effort is editors like me: I'm politically liberal (for the most part, I'm also quite libertarian), but I make a point of encouraging more conservative editors to contribute with actions like this, right here. This is because I know my own views influence how I read the sources and interpret arguments. I want our articles to be neutral, dry and to be lacking in any efforts to persuade the reader of anything that isn't factually accurate. I actually want this for the exact same reasons I hold politically liberal views: because I came to those views by doing careful research on the issues, and because I have found that the people who are most knowledgeable and thoughtful on a given issue tend to also have politically liberal views. I believe that a dry presentation of the facts, without any attempt to persuade the reader is the best way to convince readers to adopt "liberal" positions on most issues. Except gun control. Fuck the hippies on gun control, I love my LWRC M6 and I have named it "Vera" and she is my one true love. (Well, okay, I love my kids and wife more, but only a little bit more). And political correctness. Fuck your feelings, hippie. Sorry, did I start to rant a little?

Anyways, this makes me strongly want to avoid giving in to left-wing POV pushing, precisely because allowing it exposes weaknesses in liberalism that can be exploited by aggressive conservatives. One example of this was when I berated an editor for calling Trump a "piece of shit", despite them making an almost-cogent argument that such was a statement of fact (she documented dozens of reliable sources explicitly calling Trump that very same thing). The problem was that her claims were divisive and entirely emotional; it was easy for an editor with a strong conservative bias to point to her and say "You see? This is what liberals do; they attack mindlessly and viciously, arguing from their emotions." And that conservative editor was absolutely right: Trump is obviously not a coherent clump of fecal matter, but a human being who has made many divisive statements, many of which can be reasonably critiqued as an indictment of his moral character. By letting our articles espouse an undue level of left-wing bias, liberal editors actually weaken their own political positions, by providing fodder to the "opposition" to make us look bad. So in addition to encouraging conservatives, I (and many others; do not think I am patting myself on the back here, I'm just running with the pack) keep a keen eye out for left-wing bias and jump on it as soon as we see it. In fact, if you check the talk page for Milo Yiannopoulos (here), and tried to judge my political views from that, you might well conclude that I am a conservative fan of Milo. That's because most of the problems with that article come from the left. With Breitbart, it's usually the other way around, so my presentation tends to be more indicative of my personal views.

Also, I should say that a number of our best, most thoughtful editors are conservative. I am quite fond of at least five different editors who hold very very different political views than mine. The great thing is that, with all of us being experienced and devoted to maintaining a neutral tone, we actually usually agree quite a bit on what to include, and how to say it. It's very rewarding to reach across the isles like that and get such awesome results, let me tell you.

One final thing I'd like to share is our policy on neutrality. I strongly suggest you read that if you wish to continue editing controversial articles. A surprising fact to many people is that we treat neutrality very differently than news sources do. We do not at all believe in giving equal weight to all sides (and in fact, explicitly denounce doing so in our policies), but rather, in giving each view an amount of weight proportionate to its support in the reliable sources. This is why we're able to have an article like Flat earth, which explicitly says that the earth is not flat, without having to pretend that those advocating a flat earth have the same level of credibility as those opposing it.

Anyways, I hope this answered some questions. I know it's a long read and I'm sorry about that, but it's difficult to shorten it without losing a lot. I've watchlisted your talk page, so I'll be notified any time this page is edited, and can respond to any more questions you have. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering my questions, I really appreciate it. I understand we have to go with the majority opinion of reliable sources and op-eds. Breitbart is clearly a borderline case - it looks like the wording will stay. I have had a read through NPOV - fairly straight forward what the policy is in terms of reliable sources. It is always going to be an issue that the most mainstream sources have left wing inclinations, but as you say it is very difficult to address this accurately. I will have a look at Milo's talk page as well.

My edits regarding the scuffle between Alex Jones and The Young Turks were reverted. I felt the event was notable as it had some reliable sources (and lots of video evidence) and it was an unusual incident between two major rival organisations. It was removed on the grounds of WP:UNDUE and lack of reliable sources. What do you think of this incident and not using what would appear to be easily provable events on the grounds of lack of reliable sourcing. Thanks again. KU2018 (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has actually been discussed at least once before. You can see the discussion (and my facetious suggestion for how to write it) at Talk:Alex Jones#Jones vs TYT.

The section is still open if you want to add to it, but if I were to close it today (which I won't do, because I was involved and it was not a disruptive discussion), I would probably write the following:

This is an question of due weight and as such, relies on editor judgement more than a in-depth reading of policy. One editor who wanted to include has been permanently banned for disruption related to their desire to include this, and thus their opinion has been discounted. One editor expressed apathy about whether or not it was due, two editors (including me) opined that it was undue, and two editors opined that it was due. This is a textbook example of No consensus to include. The matter may be revisited again in the future.

So if you really think it should be included, express why in that section or the discussion at the TYT page. I'm not vested in the outcome at all, and if you've got a good argument, am willing to change my mind.

Regarding your reversion, I'm afraid MrX's edit summary says it all; Neither rt.com nor Breitbart are considered reliable sources for anything but the opinions and views of the author of whatever story is cited. Both have published numerous falsehood and refused to retract them in the face of being proven wrong and both have published on real events with such an obvious political spin as to make their coverage worthless. There is an RS in the discussion I linked above, I would suggest proposing the use of that source at talk at the article you think it fits best into (for what it's worth, I think it fits better at Alex Jones than at The Young Turks). Also, the less text you propose to cover the event, the more likely it is to get accepted. It really wasn't all that notable an event, even though it helps characterize and illustrate the longstanding animosity between Infowars and TYT. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

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.

Template:Z33 ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hi there. I'm not an expert in such things but I believe your username violates our username policy because it implies shared use. I believe you need to change your username away from something that suggests a generic KU account, e.g. "BobAtKU2018". (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Alex Jones, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Mr X 🖋 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Alex Jones. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Mr X 🖋 12:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unsourced, nor is it poorly sourced. Video evidence exists as well. We can discuss this at the Alex Jones talk page, but don't leave warning messages on my talk page, especially when I have not done what the message alleges. KU2018 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Today and Breitbart News are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, especially for biographies of living persons. If you disagree, your options are to seek consensus on the article talk page or at WP:RSN.- Mr X 🖋 13:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced at all by that. One discussion regarding this did not achieve consensus (Reliable Sources noticeboard archive 182). Breitbart has been cited by the New York Times. RT is reliable except for pro-Russia suspicions due to its funding. If RT is not reliable then other clearly trustworthy sites such as the BBC would by that logic not be allowed. I do not think the information should have been removed when the sources have not adequately been demonstrated as unreliable. Plus, any argument to remove this content is on a technicality - multiple videos show the said event occured. It would hold up beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. This is almost going into ignore all rules territory because using the reliable sources policy in this way is preventing the improvement and maintainence of the article. I do no think this policy needs to be used at the moment. KU2018 (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why do you keep ignoring the edit notice at Breitbart News that states: DO NOT CHANGE without consensus. See Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 3#Survey: Should Breitbart be described as far-right in the lead?? Please stop doing this or you may end up being blocked from editing.- Mr X 🖋 13:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This does not go against the decision made in the discussion regarding the inclusion of the far-right text, which said it can be used in 'certain circumstances'. It did not specify where. The edit was also to help restructure the article. This therefore is consistent with the consensus. KU2018 (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:AE#KU2018

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AE#KU2018. - Mr X 🖋 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at The Young Turks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. Sandstein 15:30, 19 January 2018 (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).

KU2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not Oscar248. I edit at Kingston Uni on a shared IP address - it covers the whole library KU2018 (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even if we believed you (and we don't), this username is inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2018 (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.

Yamla, I can change the username if you like (I don't know how to change it though). I assure you I am not Oscar248. Presumably they are a student here as well. KU2018 (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser indicates you used to edit as User:Oscar248. Therefore this account is blocked indefinitely, to match the block on that account. You are not permitted to edit using any account while your existign accounts are subject to an existing block. Courcelles (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, CheckUser uses a lot more than just IP address to establish a link (though exactly what is a guarded secret, for obvious reasons). Just off the top of my head, I can think of at least five (Wait, actually six. No, wait, seven. No, wait again... You get the idea.) different bits of technical data the servers here would have access too that could uniquely identify a particular user of a particular computer, as well as statistical methods that could be used to distinguish between two people on the same account and computer, none of which are particularly difficult to implement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People use different computers in the library as well. Where was the 'proof' besides the IP link between myself and Oscar248