User talk:Display name 99

SEMI-RETIRED

Wikipedia has become a toxic mess. Wikipedia is supposed to be an accessible source of good information available to anyone, and to maintain impartiality by presenting as fact only things which are widely acknowledged as such. Wikipedia is no longer that. Instead, it has become a tool for the atheistic and globalist ideology of the Great Reset. Valuable information is scuttered and impartiality abandoned as articles are made to cater specifically to those with short attention spans and philosophies consistent with the New World Order. Editors who protest are punished no matter how competent they are or how much they have contributed to the site, while almost any amount of belligerent behavior and incompetency is permitted as long as the editors who engage in such practices do so in the service of the left-wing consensus.

I have done my best to fight against this, but it has proven to be too much for me. I was indefinitely blocked from the site for not doing any more to advocate for conservative positions than many progressive editors advocate for progressive positions without suffering any consequences. More recently, I have been indefinitely blocked from the Andrew Jackson article, an article that I brought to featured article status and helped maintain, without satisfactory reason being given. Meanwhile, other editors who have adopted a battleground mentality on the talk page, made comments that were uncivil and blatant POV-pushing, edited disputed material without consensus, and frequently disrupted discussions were not punished and scarcely even reprimanded, including after I brought specific attention to many of these violations. I have made repeated unblock requests that have not been accepted, while I have been forced to watch as this article, which I have spent countless hours editing, has been wrecked through the removal of valuable content. Wikipedia is a trash heap that has been disgraced by editors who either do not have a clue how to create good content or do not care about doing so.

I have given the matter some thought and prayer, and decided that it is not worth the cost to my time and constitution to keep fighting these battles and trying to save a place that has grown so corrupt and decadent. I have done my duty and can do no more. So long as I am not completely blocked from the site, I will probably still make some gnomish edits from time to time, or revert some silliness here or there on articles that I have edited which have not yet gone the way of Andrew Jackson, but as far as embarking on any more large-scale projects here, I think I’m finished.

For those who intend to continue fighting for a good, comprehensive, and neutral encyclopedia, I pray that God’s blessings be upon them. With that, I step away. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Notification

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.

Andrew Jackson revisited

Undid your reversion because it appears to have been performed in error—the passage in question concerns Andrew Jackson, not John C. Calhoun.

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

So, I saw the box...

Wikipedia has become a "toxic place"? It's just a long paragraph mentioning how you've been restricted from editing Andrew Jackson. I can't blame other users for quitting based off of others doing disruptive edits, but blaming it for its toxicity regarding how its editors are handling things are too much of a stretch. If they're "POV-pushing", I'd word it more that they need to do things better.

I can't believe I have to say this, but it's true. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Or, hell, express disappointment all you want, but "toxic"...? I know Display name 99 did get grumpy at times and targeted other users to the point of making threads about them, but still, concerning behavior - c'mon now. Apparently Girth Summit also mentioned they have wanted to bypass their topic ban more than once, so I'm concerned if they're frustrated with the site... because they focus on their own perspective and not other editors'. --WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, the tone of this post is unfocused and rambling. I can't even tell what you're trying to say. I'm not sure that I care, but I just wanted you to know that your messages here are basically incomprehensible. Display name 99 (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I can understand that, so let me sum myself up:

"Calling Wikipedia toxic in your box above your talk page seems like a stretch, you had concerning behavior and targeting other users, and I mentioned how Girth Summit said you tried to bypass topic bans."

I thought you fully left, so that's why I didn't refer directly to you. Call me cynical all you want, but I hope you realize you can be disappointed, but also need to leave a better impression on this site. I'm not sure if it's because of edit disputes between the one topic you're into, but that's all I ask for. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, You're not making any sense. You say "I thought you fully left, so that's why I didn't refer directly to you." In that case, why are you still on here pestering me and pinging me on someone else's talk page? Go the fuck away. Display name 99 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Look, I'm late, but alright. I'll go. I won't bring this up ever again if that's more your thing. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, the fact that you posted anything on my talk page after my last message says a lot about you. Your attitude is incredibly self-righteous and vastly overestimates how much people want to hear you speak. Your dishonesty is also striking. GirthSummit said that I violated my topic ban, but never said that I tried to do so. In fact, it was clear from our discussion above that I said that the violation was unintentional. That editor also never said that I did it more than once but only brought up one specific violation. So in addition to behaving with an incredible sense of arrogance, you are also a liar. Since I apparently wasn't clear enough last time, I'll try again: get the fuck off my talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Look, I was surprised by the box and thought you needed advice. Don't call me names, cause it's not necessary, and besides, I'm just gonna move on from this. See WP:CIVILITY or somethin', and maybe try to talk it out in a calmer manner. Again, bye! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Calling you names is necessary. Display name 99 (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Participation at FAR of Andrew Jackson

@El C and Girth Summit:, @WP:FAR coordinators: per this partial block, is this participation acceptable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I know that you didn't ask me, but my only restriction is that I am blocked from the Andrew Jackson article and its associated talk page. Nobody ever said anything about me being under some kind of Andrew Jackson topic ban. If there were limitations that applied beyond the pages for which I was blocked, I would think that these should have been communicated to me. Display name 99 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Hmm. DN99 is correct that a partial block is not the same as a TBan, so I don't see the act of participation as a policy violation in and of itself. However, I think that the nature of the participation is skirting very close to being a WP:NPA violation. Comments like this:I will try to be charitable here and not impugn the motives of the editors... are not acceptable. It's a rhetorical device as old as the hills: I remember my Latin teacher drawing my attention to similar stuff in Cicero's prosecution of Verres, where he included aspersions that he couldn't prove by saying something like "The court need not consider the question of...". DN99 has been here long enough to know that discussions about content should focus on the content, and not on the authors' motivations, and he cannot get around that by saying he is not questioning their motives (while making it very clear that he does indeed doubt them). I think that DN99 ought to remove those comments, and if he will not the FAR coordinators would be well within their remit to redact them as off-topic and needlessly inflammatory. If DN99 continues to make comments about contributors in areas where he should be focusing on content, it will likely end with his partial block being converted to a site-wide one.

FWIW, I'll also observe that I find the meat of DN99's argument to be weak. He thinks the current version of the article is giving too much weight to some aspects of the subject, and not enough to others; a reasonable position to take perhaps, but he backs it up with nothing more than 'it was better before'. Striking the right balance about a subject like this is obviously difficult, since we all have our own biases and interests that might influence what we think are the more important aspects to cover in more detail and what we can safely skim over. Arguments of this nature should be grounded in the relative weight that recent high-quality scholarship gives the relevant issues, and should not be influenced by expressions of personal opinion, however forcefully expressed. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw him on my talk page, so I decided to see if any updates were present. You summed it up perfectly and honestly, the best he should do is try to be wary of contributor and article intentions, I guess? No userbase is perfect... and as much as I regret assuming things about him, I'd rather wait until some consensus is reached. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I regret thinking this was some social media website, so I just try to be chill and help out instead of being immature, and I think that's where he needs to improve.

I also believe WP:HELP may be of use. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, I don't think that Girth Summit is going to reply that you make a month and a half after they last posted something here. The fact that you think otherwise is more than a little ridiculous.

You're an inconsequential editor with hardly any contributions here. You aggressively inserted yourself into a dispute which did not concern you and began to relentlessly hound and lecture me in a pretentious and self-righteous tone, misrepresenting my words and actions and not making any references to the actual reasons for the dispute that led to my block because it was clear that you were too lazy to actually look into that. The fact that you think that I, or anyone else, actually cares what you have to say stuns me. Display name 99 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)