User talk:3Kingdoms

3Kingdoms, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi 3Kingdoms! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Talk:Proud Boys can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if anyone thought that. 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The concerns raised by IHateAccounts

Hello 3Kingdoms!

You have my sincerest apologies for the way IHateAccounts has interacted with you; they are still learning how to effectively report conduct issues through the proper forums. What I mean to say is, that it wasn't right for them to raise those concerns on the article talk page.

However, that does not mean IHA had concerns that were not well founded. For example, just because no one responds to your specific concerns after only a few days does not mean there is a consensus to make your proposed changes. As most experienced editors will tell you, all that means is that you should just follow the normal process of WP:BRD. There is no deadline, and a few days is not a lot of time to get an adequate response to a complicated and controversial issue like the ones present at Talk:Rob Schenck.

I have informed my well meaning (and certainly passionate) adoptee that they should avoid continued interactions with you on wiki. However, if you continue to edit war or possibly cause disruption through other means, I will not hesitate to report you myself to the appropriate forums.

Happy editing! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Very Well, will avoid doing this in the future. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

3Kingdoms (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Clearly people disagree with how I went about this. I found that no compelling reason why my edit was reverted and no one to mind gave a good response, furthrmore I found the actions of one User to be especially bad. Ultimately I accept that my constant back and forth was not the most productive. I will not edit Schenck's page anymore and will try to refraim from edit warring again if unblocked. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

This block was correct and was necessary to protect the project. However, the conditions applied by the blocking admin were that "Though the block is indefinite, other admins might consider an unblock if they become convinced that the problem will not recur."
After questioning the editor, I have come to the conclusion that the editor's approach has changed to the point that the problem will not recur: (a) the Schenck page appears to be the source of the problem and the editor has agreed not to edit it further, (b) the editor has indicated they understand the issue that was created and has demonstrated their knowledge, to the degree I can reasonably ask them to demonstrate, of the edit-warring policy, (c) the editor has committed to not edit-warring in the future. In light of this, the block will be changed to a partial block of the Schenck article for a period of time. Additional instances of edit-warring (on any page) in the near future may require extraordinary measures to arrest such as reapplication of an indef. I think this unblock is consistent with the guidance provided in the block by the blocking admin.
The genesis of the current situation appears to have been a tête-à-tête between the editor and another editor. As a point of general advice, I recommend the editor voluntarily avoid interaction with the other editor for some reasonable period of time or, at least, treat their relationship as a clean slate and let bygones be bygones. If they feel they are being hounded in the future (and I have no idea if they were or were not) they should pursue conventional means of resolution such as the 3RR noticeboard or WP:ANI.
Finally, I don't consider the editor's commitment not to edit the Schenck article as precluding them from constructively participating in that article's Talk page, including registering edit requests, however, the editor could demonstrate their level-headedness by voluntarily avoiding the Talk page for a liberal period of time. Chetsford (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

:3Kingdoms ... not to split hairs here, however, would you be willing to absolutely refrain from edit warring in the future if unblocked, as opposed to just trying to refrain? I think if you could clarify that point it would be helpful in lifting the block. Chetsford (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I would refraim entirely.3Kingdoms (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

3Kingdoms - two other quick questions. First, can you verify your familiarity with the edit warring policy by linking to the applicable page in reply to this message? Second, you said you wouldn't edit the Schenck article anymore if unblocked; would you, therefore, accept a partial block of just that page? Chetsford (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Chetsford- Yes here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring I understand the three reverts rule applies in general. I thought it only applied if you were warned before. I also would accept a partial block of just that page, although I hope this can eventually be removed after showing that I will not repeat past mistakes. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you for the unblock. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Say what you want about IHateAccounts, but they already admitted responsibility for edit warring and a willingness to accept whatever retribution was needed for their actions.^[1] (talk page watcher) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we're in the business of exacting "retribution" on editors. Chetsford (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about sanctions to prevent future disruption here not like revenge. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to say. I have also admitted responsibility for what happens and will reframe from doing so. I must admit I was rather upset because I found said user engaged in wiki hounding which got on my nerves especially after they had called me sexist because I took issue with a source that was being used.3Kingdoms (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not to be a bother about it, but I don't think I have ever seen a contribution from IHA that called you sexist..? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It was during this discussion of the Proud Boys. I took issue with four sources used and IHA said I was sexist for questioning one of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proud_Boys/Archive_5#Proto-fascism 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I just had a look there, and I don't see any specific time IHA used that label against you. TFD and Special:Contributions/2601:46:C801:B1F0:0:0:0:0/64 maybe, but not you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"Kutner is a recognized expert on the Proud Boys, a researcher with a highly respected international institution, but she's not in your mind a part of the arbitrarily assigned "high caliber like the men list" club... apparently because you WP:IDONTLIKEIT her conclusions and she has boobs." This is the main one for me. Also I found the label being used on the other two to not be acceptable and showed a lack of desire for actual debate. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I am asking you politely. Please stop making ridiculous personal attacks against me. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Pretty rich coming from someone who called three people who disagreed with you sexist and who has been hounding me. [2] 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, please stop making uncivil false accusations and personal attacks. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you or have you not been hounding me? Second my "personal attacks" can be refuted by you actually trying to be fair. You have made numerous false accusations on others posters and organizations. The fact that you can't explain why you object to Crux and how it is different from sources I have shown to be reliable to me leaves me thinking that you believe that Catholics can not be independent of the Pope, anti-Catholic or any source that does not align with your views is not reliable which is not how this works. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have explained quite plainly. Stop uncivilly and inappropriately accusing me of religious bigotry, and stop making the other sorts of completely bullshit false accusations like you just did above. It's that simple. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No you haven't. You don't answer questions why Crux is so different from the sources I listed that have a left-bias or addressed articles that members of the site have written. All of your statements so far seem only to have basis in the two ideas above. So please explain how I am wrong clearly. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have answered you QUITE thoroughly and if you choose to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, that's on you. Regardless, in response to your comment "Then how about you go to that page and discuss there", Oh Fuck No for the following reasons:

1. I haven't been "stalking" or "hounding" you or any other variation on that totally fucking false accusation you like to throw around trying to provoke me.
2. As such, I didn't know the edit even existed until after I started trying to look back to determine what started your RS/N thread to get the context that was missing in your initial post. I put the RS/N page specifically on my watchlist when I opened an RFC there, which is how I saw your thread to begin with.
3. Also, I'm not about to go to that talk page so that you can then falsely claim that's evidence of me "hounding" you.

I'm done. Learn to be civil, PLEASE. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Not very Civil of you. But lets unpack this.

1.)Please explain why how on almost ever edit I make you show up first and delete it? I have my doubts you just went through all the same pages as me like James Aloysius Hickey, the Law and Justice Party, anti-Abortion movements around the world talk page, and Poland's ongoing protests and just so happened to see my edits and revert them for poor reasoning or just not even answer my question. Going on the talk page is not hounding, but going through my edits to just revert presumably to provoke me is.

Second I mentioned the talk page cause it was derailing to have a back and forth of the noticeboard about the Polish Protests.

Third no, I have read you responses and they don't make sense, you claim to object because of AP and CNS being there, I show other examples and you ignore them. You then claim Crux and CNS are can't be reliable because of connects to the Church, I point out other sources that have biases and you ignore and again focus on "Catholics can't be objective" which leads me to conclude my two statements above.

Finally perhaps you should know that when you assume the worst in people, such as when you called me and others sexist, failed to show a remorse, or act in bad faith; then yes people will start to assume the worst in your actions, learn to deal with people you disagree with as opposed to exploding and doing everything to take them down. You can freely choose to not follow me and no engage, but you do, that is on you not me. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"1.)Please explain why how on almost ever edit I make you show up first and delete it?" - False claim.

"you claim to object because of AP and CNS being there, I show other examples and you ignore them" - Your failure to understand the policies is causing you a lot of troubles. WP:SYNDICATED content is judged on the merits of the organization producing it. Organizations that fail, regularly, by running syndicated content known to be false can indeed be lowered in reliability, but merely picking up an AP republishing feed doesn't add reliability to an organization. And again, when you proposed Crux being "reliable" for Orthodox Church content, your ONLY links were to items that Crux republished from AP, which showed that you are having major problems with understanding the sourcing policy.

At this point I am reaching the point where I think I need to refer you to Wikipedia:Competence is required. "Basically, we presume that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:...the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles." I think you need to spend a good amount of time doing this, because your edits - and the sources you are relying on - are showing that you are not doing a good job of assessing the reliability of sources.

As to your false accusations yet again... I will repeat myself. Learn to be civil. PLEASE. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I already explained look at your own history why are you always the first to revert my edits, you can claim false but we know the truth.

How hard is it for you to understand, fine don't use those articles here is one by them just like how I have shown you before [3] wow truly shocking.

Finally for someone who like to talk about [[Wikipedia:Competence is required] your not very competent yourself, the fact that you thought that the Law and Justice party are close to neo-nazi, or using "women's health rights" means you have no idea what your talking about just like the proud boys discussion. Again you can't explain why the source is not reliable, but which why I assume you either can't or you don't like the idea that Catholics can publish news on themselves.

I repeat myself explain yourself, stop hounding, and grow up you clearly don't know what your talking about and it is sad. Also keep this up and I will report you for harassment. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

What you've linked there is an interview. Perhaps reliable under attribution for specifically what the interviewed subject said, not reliable for much else. I'm ignoring the rest of your reckless and completely uncivil personal attacks. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I can find plenty more if you wanna play this game. Maybe you stop arguing on my page, go do something else? 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You're the one who demanded I reply. Maybe you should learn to be civil, and take a class on media literacy? IHateAccounts (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have, but since you won't answer what's the point. If you won't than would kindly walk away? Also given the swearing I think you need to calm down and be more civil 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I literally have answered you, over and over again. If you choose to scream WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at the answer and constantly behave un-civilly, don't blame me. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

But the thing is you haven't. What the difference between Crux and The Nation? I'm pretty calm right, settle down. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Please stop edit warring. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC) IHateAccounts (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not editing warring, I stopped after the last guy reverted since he actually gave a reason unlike the first. Please stop hounding. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not hounding for me to warn you about edit warring on a page I have on my watchlist because I participate in that talk fairly often. Your uncivil accusation is noted however. It seems to be a pattern. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing about what I did was edit warring. Your uncivil accusations are a pattern yourself and are noted. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that @NorthBySouthBaranof: gave a very proper reply to you ("I'm sorry that you disagree with consensus, but you'll have to change it to remove these (true) words."), your 2nd revert was definitely the start of edit war behavior, something you've done fairly often. I was not one of the two editors who reverted you; I was actually hoping that an early warning this time would help keep you from getting into trouble yet again. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

As I explained there was no consensus. The hounding comes from you posting this on my page when it did not concern you and the three reverts had not occurred. So move along. Edit warring occurred once. I'm just going to remove part of what you posted since this is clearly "abusive comments" by your own view. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is, in fact, a consensus. The existing wording carries WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS by having remained a significant period of time, and no new consensus has generated because those arguing for a change have remained in the minority. Editing my comments is also an uncivil violation of WP:TALK, so revert yourself. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)