User talk:ADP85xzVcQD: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:02, 11 July 2019

Welcome!

Hello, ADP85xzVcQD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Arcadian (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Due to the culture of the "experienced" editors, I am taking a permanent leave of absence from editing or using Wikipedia. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2019 (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).

ADP85xzVcQD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have followed all the requests by the editors. For instance, an entire paragraph of text was reverted on Pacific Symposium on Biocomputer because it didn't have a secondary citation, only a primary citation. The instructions for Wikipedia say a primary citation is sufficient, but the editor wants a secondary. So I revert, additionally adding the citation for "Greene, Casey S; Garmire, Lana X; Gilbert, Jack A; Ritchie, Marylyn D; Hunter, Lawrence E (2017). "Celebrating parasites". Nature Genetics. 49 (4): 483–484. doi:10.1038/ng.3830. ISSN 1061-4036." I explain this is a secondary citation to an article in a high impact science journal. The editor persists in saying it isn't a secondary citation. This is for a 20+ impact factor scientific journal not at all associated with the award, and the text of that paper describes the award and the first two awardees. The journal article is behind a paywall, but it is made available through PubMed at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5710834/. I explain, and revert making further edits to add more citations. At that point, she/he asked me to move it to the "talk" page, so I did. You will see that text there now beginning with: "I have proposed the following section which two editors call promotional/spam/advertising. I hope someone can make them suitable and add them to the page. I am working to find more references.ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)" You can also see the time. It is 12 hours later there is this comment, "curprev 15:54, 18 June 2019‎ Praxidicae talk contribs‎ 2,398 bytes -1,181‎ Undid revision 902331357 by ADP85xzVcQD (talk) per bbb23's last comment, get consensus on the talk page FIRST, the notion that the sources included are independent coverage is incorrect, they're listings and eligibility criteria. undo Tag: Undo". And now my account is blocked? Yet I'm the ONLY editor trying to get consensus. Meanwhile, I've been hunting down primary and secondary sources, building content, etc. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only; you state above that you are taking a permanent LOA from Wikipedia, meaning there is no reason to unblock you. If you change your mind and want to edit, you are free to make a new request. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2019 (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.

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).

ADP85xzVcQD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear 331dot, I think it would be unfair to not resolve it now for three reasons: (1) if I ever change my mind it would be difficult to request an unblock at a later date, (2) I took the time to gather that evidence, and (3) while I do not want to edit or use Wikipedia, I would like to resolve the issue I raised about the editors. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2019 (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.

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).

ADP85xzVcQD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear 331dot or Acroterion or other administrator, The block is not necessary because there was no damage or disruption to Wikipedia and there will not be. I have followed all the requests by the editors. I routinely seek out the guidance pages, and make it clear which guidance pages I'm using and referring to. I make suggestions on how those could be improved, since I do not feel I am qualified to improve them. I have evidence provide above that I was trying to build consensus. I asked for help numerous times, yet I have yet to receive any help. When I apparently made a typographical mistake on a page about deletion, I apologized to the editor. I have been collegial, even when others throw insults at me, including yet again earlier today. I have stood by the five pillars even when others have not. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You continue to show absolutely no understanding of why you were blocked and how you intend to change your behavior, despite claiming to take a leave of access. You continue to spam unblock requests while solely attacking other editors for their conduct instead of looking at your own. I have now removed access to your talk page because you continue to spam these requests. Sasquatch t|c 04:53, 19 June 2019 (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.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

ADP85xzVcQD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #25860 was submitted on Jul 10, 2019 19:13:44. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

ADP85xzVcQD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #25866 was submitted on Jul 11, 2019 02:55:30. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 {{unblock reviewed | 1=Dear 331dot or Acroterion or other administrator, The block is not necessary because there was no damage or disruption to Wikipedia and there will not be. I have followed all the requests by the editors. I routinely seek out the guidance pages, and make it clear which guidance pages I'm using and referring to. I make suggestions on how those could be improved, since I do not feel I am qualified to improve them. I have evidence provide above that I was trying to build consensus. I asked for help numerous times, yet I have yet to receive any help. When I apparently made a typographical mistake on a page about deletion, I apologized to the editor. I have been collegial, even when others throw insults at me, including yet again earlier today. I have stood by the five pillars even when others have not. [[User:ADP85xzVcQD|ADP85xzVcQD]] ([[User talk:ADP85xzVcQD#top|talk]]) 01:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC) | decline = You continue to show absolutely no understanding of why you were blocked and how you intend to change your behavior, despite claiming to take a leave of access. You continue to spam unblock requests while solely attacking other editors for their conduct instead of looking at your own. I have now removed access to your talk page because you continue to spam these requests. '''[[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]'''  [[User_talk:Sasquatch|t]]&#0124;[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|c]] 04:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)}}
-==Documentation on the culture of "experienced" editors==
-I'm documenting here that today I posted a request for help with an editor at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.  Instead of any engaging with me and anyone helping me, I was blocked within a half an hour.  They asked for evidence but gave me no time to provide it, and I put that I didn't know how to without running a foul of a rule or an editor.  Furthermore, because I'm blocked I couldn't provide it in any way anyway. Some of the evidence is above about how I tried to reach consensus, but the editors did not.  And for clarity the exact quote from the editor, which took at least 10 minutes to find, is: ":{{u|ADP85xzVcQD}} I don't know if you are unable to read", so their response on the Incident board appears at face value to be disingenuous at a minimum. Although given the double negative, I'm actually questioning if I know what that means.
-In addition, I had this text also taken from that editors history: "That is not how the text reads.  If you mean the text to read in another way, you should edit it to avoid confusion. In addition, if you follow the links there is little to no guidance given.  You should take this as the helpful comment it is, as opposed to issuing threats."  Despite the editors claims, I was trying to help improve Wikipedia. I was trying to point out how new users read and perceive things, so they can be fixed and improved. The text in that banner is at best ambiguous, it can be reworded, and should be, if something else is meant.  The guidance provided when you click on a banner could also be improved. I think there is drift between editor's expectations and the actual guidelines that other editor's receive on/from Wikipedia.  Those can be corrected by realigning them in any number of ways once someone raises the problem. I raised the problem and asked for that to occur.
-Of note, I'm confident improving these things would end a lot of the issues.  While I'm on my soap box, I would also add, that issuing warnings and threats to block users really should be a last resort, and there seems to be no intermediate step of helping someone figure it out. I had a very kind editor take the time to tell me that it is easy for "experienced editors" to get jaded; I get that. But the results seems to be that the key principle in the fourth pillar of Wikipedia is being overlooked. "Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers." New editors should be welcomed, not constantly reprimanded and reverted. Consider asking them if they want a mentor.  Or asking them if they want a chat session to work something out, give them more judicious precision editing, give them more and better comments on edits with less editor-specific jargon and keep the "undo"/"rollback" to a minimum. [[User:ADP85xzVcQD|ADP85xzVcQD]] ([[User talk:ADP85xzVcQD#top|talk]]) 19:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
-Here is another example:  I desperately asked for help ("wits end") and the response is "Too much text, not enough evidence".  And then another thrown insult of "incompetent"
-I am struggling with an editor. The editor insulted me the other day. They keep threatening and warning me, but they are mistaken. The first time there is a banner we both read differently. Rather than acknowledge that the banner could be read to ways and being conciliatory, she insulted me, calling me illiterate. Today, she accused me of something that the timeline of events in this history (essentially accusing me of a reverting war and not finding consensus in the talk page, despite me adding the text to the talk page almost 12 hour prior.) I'm truly at my wits end. I strongly suspect there are a group of jaded experienced editors that really are targeting me, and I think it needs to be researched and addressed. That said, I can't even put the editor's name here because I can't figure out the rules above and am literally in tears about how I've been treated. These horrible experiences with senior editors are a recurring problem; if Wikipedia were a real company I'm positive this would not be tolerated; in fact, I'm positive it would result in a harassment lawsuit. I think ultimately editors just assume that everyone is up to no good. But Wikipeida can't and won't survive if that continues. But that is a digression, and ultimately I'm asking for help with this editor, and possibly "these" editors as it feels coordinated. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
-Too much text, not enough evidence. El_C 16:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
-(edit conflict)I did not call you illiterate, I asked if you had bothered to read what you were being told. And you are edit warring, per the history on this article where bbb23 asked you at least twice to take it to the talk page and get consensus before reinstating the edits. I can say for certain there is nothing coordinated between myself and bbb23 and I certainly am not targeting you, nor have I threatened or harassed you. In fact, I've asked you twice to stop leaving tirades on my talk page. As far as your statement about Wikipedia being a real company and a harassment lawsuit, we're volunteers, we're not employees and we follow community established policies and guidelines. Sometimes hearing "no" sucks but it doesn't mean you're being harassed. Praxidicae (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
-Warned for legal threats, as well. Which may be moot, however. El_C 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
-We'll see. I've often found that editors who angry-retire come back, and that the so-called retirement is just a way to avoid the consequences of their problematic conduct. I could say more about this very difficult editor, who, ultimately, is NOTHERE and incompetent, but I have no time at the moment because of some RL commitments.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
-I’ve indef’d the OP for disruptive editing and either inability or unwillingness to engage in the communication needed to work on a collaborative project. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
-Further documentation that Bbb23 is not even trying to help and is actually the one not trying to build consensus. 24 hours after asking me to talk on [[Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing]], there isn't even a single response. While I would say it is because they are busy and really shouldn't expect anything for at least week or even more, he/she did find time to contribute to the post I documented above saying I'm "NOTHERE and incompetent".  Neither of which are true or appropriate.
-Furthermore, here is the history for that page:
-curprev 15:54, 18 June 2019‎ Praxidicae talk contribs‎  2,398 bytes -1,181‎  Undid revision 902331357 by ADP85xzVcQD (talk) per bbb23's last comment, get consensus on the talk page FIRST, the notion that the sources included are independent coverage is incorrect, they're listings and eligibility criteria. undo Tag: Undo
-curprev 02:57, 18 June 2019‎ ADP85xzVcQD talk contribs‎  3,579 bytes +1,181‎  Undid revision 902306192 by Bbb23 (talk); it had a secondary reference already. doi=10.1038/ng.3830 is the journal Nature Genetics. It has a high impact factor and important international scientific journal. undo Tag: Undo
-curprev 22:53, 17 June 2019‎ Bbb23 talk contribs‎  2,398 bytes -1,209‎  Undid revision 902305743 by ADP85xzVcQD (talk) there is not a single secondary reference - when you have reliable secondary sources supporting the material and it's noteworthy, you may add it undo Tag: Undo
-curprev 22:49, 17 June 2019‎ ADP85xzVcQD talk contribs‎  3,607 bytes +1,209‎  Undid revision 902266895 by Bbb23 (talk) reverted to include the text, please use the citation needed notation for places where you feel it needs secondary sources. This helps to improve the content on Wikipedia. I have added more citations; I will try to add further citations shortly. undo Tag: Undo
-curprev 17:46, 17 June 2019‎ Bbb23 talk contribs‎ m  2,398 bytes -841‎  Reverted edits by ADP85xzVcQD (talk) to last version by Me, Myself, and I are Here this requires secondary sourcing undo Tag: Rollback
-curprev 15:52, 17 June 2019‎ ADP85xzVcQD talk contribs‎ m  3,239 bytes +29‎  added links to other exisitng wikipedia pages undo
-curprev 15:50, 17 June 2019‎ ADP85xzVcQD talk contribs‎  3,210 bytes +812‎  Added references to the two awards to the page as well as the citations for those awards. undo
-To say that I didn't try to build consensus is unfair.  I gave specific details.  I asked for help. And then when asked, I immediately put it on the "talk" page.
 {{UTRS-unblock-user|25860|Jul 10, 2019 19:13:44|closed}}--[[User:UTRSBot|UTRSBot]] ([[User talk:UTRSBot|talk]]) 19:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 {{UTRS-unblock-user|25866|Jul 11, 2019 02:55:30|closed}}--[[User:UTRSBot|UTRSBot]] ([[User talk:UTRSBot|talk]]) 02:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)