Jump to content

User talk:Toddy1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m →‎Victoria Nuland and my block: ce - forgot to ping
Line 118: Line 118:


::{{ping|Γνῶθι σεαυτόν}} You're use of the term 'friends' is very pointed. I hope you do realise that you appear to be stuck in a 'cabal' rut that can be easily be demonstrated to be false if I could be bothered dredging through a few years worth of thousands of edits where MVBW and Toddy1 have disagreed somewhat vehemently on issues, yet maintained collegial and civil relationships. That's what happens when editors who are [[WP:HERE]] interact. I've also worked collaboratively with editors I usually disagree with, as well as editors I sometimes agree with wholeheartedly and, conversely, sometimes disagree with wholeheartedly. In as much as is humanly possible, editors try to discuss content disagreements in a constructive manner in order to improve articles without allowing themselves to get disagreeably emotionally invested (but, yes, heated bickering occurs). You're investing too much of your energies in [[WP:GRUDGE|raking over the same ground]] as to who got you into hot water... It was ''you'' who got yourself into trouble. The sooner you move on and start editing without lugging around your "but I was railroaded" mentality with you, the sooner you'll be able to prove yourself to be the good editor you have the potential to be. If you've learnt nothing from the experience of being blocked, nor recognised your own culpability, you're just going repeat the same errors in judgement. Don't dwell: just get on with the job of editing. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 03:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Γνῶθι σεαυτόν}} You're use of the term 'friends' is very pointed. I hope you do realise that you appear to be stuck in a 'cabal' rut that can be easily be demonstrated to be false if I could be bothered dredging through a few years worth of thousands of edits where MVBW and Toddy1 have disagreed somewhat vehemently on issues, yet maintained collegial and civil relationships. That's what happens when editors who are [[WP:HERE]] interact. I've also worked collaboratively with editors I usually disagree with, as well as editors I sometimes agree with wholeheartedly and, conversely, sometimes disagree with wholeheartedly. In as much as is humanly possible, editors try to discuss content disagreements in a constructive manner in order to improve articles without allowing themselves to get disagreeably emotionally invested (but, yes, heated bickering occurs). You're investing too much of your energies in [[WP:GRUDGE|raking over the same ground]] as to who got you into hot water... It was ''you'' who got yourself into trouble. The sooner you move on and start editing without lugging around your "but I was railroaded" mentality with you, the sooner you'll be able to prove yourself to be the good editor you have the potential to be. If you've learnt nothing from the experience of being blocked, nor recognised your own culpability, you're just going repeat the same errors in judgement. Don't dwell: just get on with the job of editing. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 03:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Given that [[Molière]] was prominently mentioned, this story does remind me [[Tartuffe|one of his famous plays]], or in Russian tradition, [[The Village of Stepanchikovo|the story about Foma Fomich]]. While watching the latter play by Dostoevsky, I thought about Yegor Ilyich: why did not he [[Wikipedia:Deny recognition|deny recognition]]? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


== Advice Requested ==
== Advice Requested ==

Revision as of 16:27, 28 November 2015


Can you become the Supreme Leader of the Supreme Cabal?
Wikibreak
Third opinion
$220
Chance
?
Mediation
$220
Arbitration
$240
Jimbo Wales
$200
In the news
$260
On this day
$260
MediaWiki
$150
Did you know
$280
You are banned!
RFA
$200
WIKIOPOLYFPC
$300
PERM
$180
POTD
$300
Community discussionCommunity discussion
Editor review
$180
FAC
$320
Developers
$200
Rouge admin
$200
Deletion review
$160
Chance
?
AFD
$140
TFA
$350
Wikimedia Foundation
$150
Edit war
(pay $100)
CSD
$140
Main Page
$400
WP:BANNED
Just browsing
WikiProject Spam
$120
UAA
$100
Chance
?
AIV
$100
Admin cabal
$200
Teh Drahmaz
(pay $200)
AN
$60
Community discussionANI
$60
Go
Collect $200 salary as you pass


Watch list

Added the article as per your request. Edward321 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Nuland and my block

Toddy 1, you must be aware that I have recently been indefinitely blocked for the pictures of Victoria Nuland you placed on my talk page, since I mentioned you multiple times. I must say that I fail to understand why you never intervened to say that I had not asked for these images. Don't you think it was your moral duty to do so? Especially considering that you have nothing to fear? Unlike me, you are not someone that can be thrown into the waste basket for something like this. This has seriously affected me morally, and I hope that you will have the kindness to provide me with an answer. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • What a coincidence--I just came by to ask the same question. Actually, no, a different questions, just a simple one--Toddy1, are you aware that what you were doing was considered a serious BLP violation? As to the previous question, yes, one would have expected some solidarity. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that Againstdisinformation was blocked for being WP:NOT HERE. My understanding is that this occurred because of an overall pattern of behaviour. I do not think that it happened because of any one incident. It may have been because of a "straw that broke the camel's back". When I looked at the pattern of edits in late August-early September 2015 on Anna Politkovskaya and the bizarre arguments at Talk:Anna Politkovskaya#Putin's Birthday & the lead, I got the impression of Againstdisinformation was someone who was arguing that black was white. (I noted that Drmies was supporting Againstdisinformation on that occasion.) I do not know whether the indefinite block of Againstdisinformation was the right thing to do. I do not think that it was in any way my doing.

The point that was made by the post containing the photos is that some Wikipedia articles are like adverts for their subjects.

I knew that it was being claimed that my actions had something to do with Againstdisinformation's block was when I kept being alerted that my ID was appearing on his/her talk page. I did not regard the claims as true. It seemed to me that they were just a pretext. I was mildly glad that Againstdisinformation was eventually given an unblock offer. (No doubt Drmies can use his/her admin tools to verify that I thanked Vanjagenije.)

In case you have not understood the phrase "just a pretext". You were not really blocked because you reverted the admin's deletion of something on your talk page. You were blocked because of an overall pattern of behaviour convinced people that you were WP:NOT HERE. Reverting the admin who was disciplining you was not smart; it escalating the situation. It did not matter what the revert was.

I had no awareness whatsoever that using the photos, to make the point that Wikipedia articles sometimes look like adverts, was a breach of BLP rules.

As for intervening, I asked myself some questions:

  • Was Againstdisinformation WP:NOT HERE? Yes
  • Was Againstdisinformation's block anything to do with me? No
  • What on earth could I possibly say that would not have made the situation worse? Nothing
  • Do I really want to get into a conflict with admins, where my words will be twisted around to mean whatever suits people's purposes? Not really

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I saw your posts at Talk:RT (TV network). "Long live Animal Farm... Napoleon is always right.".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy 1, the reason given by the blocking administrator for justifying my block was :
"OK, we've explained our policies on living people, and you very clearly don't give a damn. Game over. I have blocked you and revoked talk page access to prevent you reinstating the pictures."Guy (Help!) 09:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC).
Was he lying, then? You claim that the real reason for my block was "an overall pattern of behaviour" and you cite my "bizarre arguments at Talk:Anna Politkovskaya#Putin's Birthday & the lead", which gave you the impression that "Againstdisinformation was someone who was arguing that black was white". Do you therefore think that BMK and Drmies, who apparently shared my lunacy, should have also been indefinitely blocked? Do you sincerely think that it would not have helped me if you had stated publicly that you placed the contentious images on my talk page without my consent, or even my knowledge? Did you not feel for one moment that you had a moral duty to do so? Why did your friends My very best wishes, who constantly claims to be extremely busy, and Iryna Harpy, with whom you co-edited against me on such an uncontroversial matter as the spelling of Edme-Antoine Durand, spend so much time and effort to keep me blocked? To the soul wrenching question that you asked yourself: "Is Againstdisinformation WP:NOT HERE?" you answered emphatically Yes. Apart from Drmies and SageRad, who stood up bravely for my defence, all editors to whom I asked the essential question: "Why was Toddy1 never asked even a single question about the images? remained silent. After this, I can't help feeling more and more that I have fallen naively into a trap. To the question: "Is Toddy1 WP:NOT HERE?", sadly, it is hard for me not to answer: she is probably where she belongs. I bear you no grudge, but I have lost many illusions. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The claims of improper collaboration by Γνῶθι σεαυτόν here ("Why did your friends My very best wishes, who constantly claims to be extremely busy, and Iryna Harpy, with whom you co-edited against me") are completely wrong and a violation of his unblock conditions. For example, I remember interacting with Toddy1 on only two pages (probably were more), and in both cases we happened to disagree. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, I never said anything about your interactions with Toddy1, I am just mentioning to her that she collaborated with Iryna Harpy in opposing me on an article, of which I sincerely doubt they would even have known the existence, had I not edited it. Had I wanted to accuse you of hounding me, I would have chosen a much better example, but I am not interested. However, you stated on my talk page that there was no need to unblock me temporarily to answer accusations leveled against me (by you, among others, but chiefly by you), arguing that other editors would surely post my comments for me. I then aked you if you were ready to do it yourself, and you agreed. The first time I asked you to post a message on AN for me you immediately declined, saying that "In this message you blame another contributor of BLP violation. I do not want to be involved in this at all, especially since I have seen personal information posted by this contributor on-wiki about herself". I therefore assumed that you were friends, and this can in no way be construed as an accusation. Now, after all your efforts to keep me blocked, you argue that alluding to this friendship constitutes in itself a violation of my unblock conditions, no doubt with the hope of seeing me blocked again. Why are you doing all this? Can one really believe that it is out of a sincere and selfless dedication to the Wikipedia project? I firmly believe that I have the right to know why I ended up being indefinitely blocked for a BLP violation I never had the slightest intention of committing in the fist place. Seeing that this accusation rests on nothing, Iryna Harpy, like Toddy1 say that it was not in fact the real reason, the real reason being that I am WP:NOT HERE. A very vague accusation that conveniently frees the accuser from the burden of proof (like in good old Salem, he is a witch!). Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Toddy1, I need you to answer me directly, without interference by My very best wishes. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia, it is between you and me as human beings. Your first edits on my talkpage led me into believing that somehow you did not dislike me altogether. Why did you never say a word to help me? Was it really a trap, as was suggested on AN by an editor who concluded I was a fool? Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is all melodrama. Nobody has trapped you. Nobody hates you. Nobody even dislikes you. I have already answered your questions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into anything else, as someone who happened to see the unblock discussion at ANI and then went from curiosity (partly because of the very interesting former username that former AgainstDisinformation was forced to change) i saw very good editing, and i saw rather good behavior on the talk pages. I am very convinced by all the evidence i've seen at article talk pages and edits to content, that former AgainstDisinformation is definitely WP:HERE. Their arguments are coherent and on topic and generally not causing drama except in responding to drama levied against them. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν is WP:HERE from everything i have seen in their edit history in the article talk pages and content edits. SageRad (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. His comments above, such as Why did your friends My very best wishes, who constantly claims to be extremely busy, and Iryna Harpy, with whom you co-edited against me on such an uncontroversial matter as the spelling of Edme-Antoine Durand, spend so much time and effort to keep me blocked? are inappropriate and I think is a violation of his unblocking conditions. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May be you should look better.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Γνῶθι σεαυτόν: You're use of the term 'friends' is very pointed. I hope you do realise that you appear to be stuck in a 'cabal' rut that can be easily be demonstrated to be false if I could be bothered dredging through a few years worth of thousands of edits where MVBW and Toddy1 have disagreed somewhat vehemently on issues, yet maintained collegial and civil relationships. That's what happens when editors who are WP:HERE interact. I've also worked collaboratively with editors I usually disagree with, as well as editors I sometimes agree with wholeheartedly and, conversely, sometimes disagree with wholeheartedly. In as much as is humanly possible, editors try to discuss content disagreements in a constructive manner in order to improve articles without allowing themselves to get disagreeably emotionally invested (but, yes, heated bickering occurs). You're investing too much of your energies in raking over the same ground as to who got you into hot water... It was you who got yourself into trouble. The sooner you move on and start editing without lugging around your "but I was railroaded" mentality with you, the sooner you'll be able to prove yourself to be the good editor you have the potential to be. If you've learnt nothing from the experience of being blocked, nor recognised your own culpability, you're just going repeat the same errors in judgement. Don't dwell: just get on with the job of editing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Molière was prominently mentioned, this story does remind me one of his famous plays, or in Russian tradition, the story about Foma Fomich. While watching the latter play by Dostoevsky, I thought about Yegor Ilyich: why did not he deny recognition? My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice Requested

At Talk:Aisha there is an IP, 5.107.81.9 who started editing 11/26 and has only edited that talk page.[1] They are clearly a SPA, but when I add that tag they repeatedly remove it.[2] [3] [4][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Their edit summaries claim to cite Template:Spa, but I don't see anything in the template that matches what they claim to quote. Any suggestions? Edward321 (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]