Jump to content

User talk:WMrapids

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WMrapids (talk | contribs) at 16:41, 24 April 2024 (→Appeal request: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kent Vanderwood has been accepted

Kent Vanderwood, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Imzadi 1979 → 22:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs

Hi WMrapids. I've closed you most recent RFC at WP:RSN, it's not the way to get the answers to the questions you asked. If you want clarification of the close of an RFC such as the original La Patilla, your first step should be to ask the closer. If you don't think their answer is satisfactory you can ask for the close to be reviewed at WP:AN.
RFCs are meant to be the last step in a process, not something you should rush into. I suggest you try discussion with other editors, and if you can't come to a consensus follow the advice at WP:DISPUTE. Also before you create any more RFC I strongly suggest you read WP:RFCBEFORE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks for the information and I'll try my best to apply it as needed. I genuinely am trying to avoid disputes and appreciate you taking the time to explain things to me (again). As I've said before, I really don't want to be involved in controversial topics, but I've seen a need in some areas. If you ever feel frustrated with explaining things to other editors (I this hope isn't the case with me), please remember that it's users like you who help guide others in the right direction, which is something vital for the project. I'll try to be careful with potential RfCs in the future and try other dispute resolution processes first. WMrapids (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids, after Siroxo closed the first RFC, and ActivelyDisinterested closed the second RFC, you queried Siroxo about contentious topics, and Siroxo clarified. There are no general sanctions on Venezuelan topics; BLPs are a contentious topic, Venezuela is not. Telesur is not a BLP or a contentious topic. And yet, you are doing this. Which part of the summary at WP:RSP of the close of La Patilla do you think supports your edit warring at Telesur? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point where it says "be extremely cautious in referencing coverage of politics". Since La Patilla is a direct political opponent to those operating Telesur, it would be undue to have its coverage spread throughout the article of its opponent. I'll try to find better sources than La Patilla as I don't want to just gut the article. WMrapids (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're stretching the conclusions of the close, but more importantly, I see no edits on the talk page regarding the edit warring; please engage talk more to avoid multiple reverts requiring others to inquire about your logic. What I see is the removal of text whose point will be easily cited, as its the very reason Telesur is deprecated. They lie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not they lie, are blatant propaganda, etc. does not mean that POV and undue content should be placed in the article. WMrapids (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juan Guaidó, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Signers of the Madrid Charter has been nominated for deletion

Category:Signers of the Madrid Charter has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G11 on Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy

Hello WMrapids -- I've declined this speedy deletion request as G11 is meant for articles that are irredeemable promotion, with no factual content or reliable sources. Generally, if you feel the need to explain why something should be deleted, speedy is not the appropriate route. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: Thank you for the explanation. Would you recommend a nomination for deletion instead? WMrapids (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale "Article promoting the legitimization of the disputed presidency of Juan Guaidó. Topic is not notable, only covered by local sources and has no Spanish-language equivalent on Wikipedia, suggesting that this article is not relevant in the Spanish-speaking sphere and is solely promotional in nature. Article has not been edited since year of its creation." would be best explored at Articles for Deletion; then other editors with experience in the area (which I lack) would have a chance to respond. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tag

Good afternoon comrade. Just letting you know that I did notice your recent tag but won't be replying on the talk page. I have not been paying much attention to the regime change pages lately, since Guaidó has left the scene and appointed himself visiting professor at some red-neck U.S. university. Reward for service. Btw, I do admire your patience. Solidarity!! Burrobert (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'm not really in it for any idea, just that things seemed to be inaccurately balanced and I wanted to help the project; it's really the last place I want to be editing. It does take patience to work things out with those who are passionate about what they believe, though things seem to find a way in the end through discussion. WMrapids (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) xD --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Peru topicon

Template:WikiProject Peru topicon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Thank you for providing this! Much more simple. WMrapids (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Fujimorist propaganda

Hello, WMrapids. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Fujimorist propaganda".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia

An FYI; see where attribution is not needed. The idea behind the copying within guideline is that Wikipedia's licensing requires that individual's contributions be attributed; when you wholly write content and then (with no editor having changed that content) add the exact content you wrote to another article, CWW attribution isn't needed. It's all your work; no one else needs to be attributed. When in doubt, attribute, but in this case, as the edits were back to back, it was extra work you didn't need to do.

Separately, since summary style was used to trim the main article when the sub-article was created (because the main article was too long), let's not bloat the main article with individual opinions again-- that's why there's a sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you for the information. I try to be as careful as possible with policy and it's probably good practice for me in case I'm forgetful with attribution. WMrapids (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings

Felices fiestas
We may not always agree on what's best, but I trust that we have been able to find common solutions many times. I sent you my warmest regards and wish you the best this season. Happy holidays! NoonIcarus (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is difficult when you track down pages I create, drive-by tag them and nominate them for deletion. Nevertheless, let's try to be as amicable as possible. WMrapids (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lima Consensus (economy) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lima Consensus (economy) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lima Consensus (economy) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

NoonIcarus (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For having written, improved and expanded a large number of articles on Politics. Ultranuevo (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Caracazo
added a link pointing to The Telegraph
List of massacres in Venezuela
added a link pointing to The Telegraph

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking (Guarimba)

In the recent weeks, this is probably the most egregious case of blanking that I have encountered with you so far. Not only you continue saying that the text is not in the sources despite proof of the opposite in the talk page, but you're asking me to "discuss first" when you have not engaged in the talk page. I'll remind that I have already complained about blanking in the past, and will not doubt to do it again if needed. Regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was further discussed in the article's talk page.--WMrapids (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Allegations against NoonIcarus

I suggest when you allege that an editor has made POV editing across multiple pages in a topic area, (as done here with NoonIcarus) that you make those allegations on that editor's talk page rather than in one of the many articles. The focus on the talk page should be more on the article in question rather than the editor's overall behavior here. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. As frustrated as I am with his prolonged situation, it is difficult when the messages are deleted or moved to a separate article by NoonIcarus. Given that the user supported moving discussions about their behavior to an article talk page away from their own page, it suggested to me that such discussions were appropriate, but I'll be more careful with such discussions in the future. Thanks again! WMrapids (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that deleting warnings is not great. Editor did the same with my warning. And I also believe neither comment made it to the talk archives either. I believe it is an attempt to hide the warnings. However, this can be used to show that an editor both got the warnings -and- did not take them seriously. That doesn't look good if the editor ever is brought to AN/I over the same issues.
Unlike that editor, I prefer transparency, and I keep the warnings. An admin--who offered and helped me with archiving--thanked me for that. In fact, for almost all of my editing history, I don't believe I ever deleted any warnings.
As for this move, I suggested it and NoonIcarus simply did what I suggested. It would have been better if you have moved it, but I don't see a problem. To be honest, I considered moving it too.--David Tornheim (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: Well, I never got to see your response since the discussion was moved and I missed it in the diff. Honestly, I admit to removing generic templates placed by NoonIcarus myself,[1] but this was after reading that users should "[a]void posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive." Such templates placed by NoonIcarus, who was also edit warring, seemed to be inappropriate and intended to further add fuel to the fire (especially since they have a history of making things personal).
Since you are a great example of practicing transparency (especially with this edit), I will try to go back and place back discussions that are not generic warnings if they were removed. Dialogue is the best way forward, but it requires everyone to act in good faith. Thanks for helping with mediating this process. WMrapids (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lorent Saleh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Mundo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Venezuela

Given your interest in editing Venezuelan articles, you might consider joining this group: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Venezuela/Members
I am probably going to join. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mercy Health (Michigan).png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mercy Health (Michigan).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The links to Stratfor in this edit[2] don't work because they contain a duplication in the URL ("/article/article/").
So,
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/article/venezuela-marigold-revolution
should be, https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/venezuela-marigold-revolution
Both links work once the extra "\article" is removed. Put this here rather than ANI as it's not directly relevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: Thank you so much! I have no idea how that happened. WMrapids (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:John Ball Zoo logo.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:John Ball Zoo logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan politics

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Venezuelan politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,—S Marshall T/C 10:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continued aspersions

After being asked/reminded many times over many months to focus on content and avoid personalizing and casting aspersions, this issue continues. With a quick search, I find at least here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here (there may be more).

Specifically, when you asserted in October that "Honestly, this seems more like Wikihounding behavior by both you and NoonIcarus" (re a Copying Within Wikipedia issue I raised that had nothing to do with NoonIcarus-- CWW is a personal interest of mine as I participate at WP:CCI), I reminded you that "the aspersions need to stop. It is ludicrous to suggest that I followed you to an article I created and wrote most of. And I am not NoonIcarus; you've been asked once already at ANI to cease the aspersions; please do." You seem intent on implying that I edit at NoonIcarus's behest or in collusion with him.

Repeating that behavior again months later, at the current ANI, you appear to insinuate tag-teaming or collusion between Bobfrombrockley and NoonIcarus, which was politely corrected by BobFromBrockley:

  • I know that you two have worked pretty closely together on removing some info from United States involvement in regime change. ... WMrapids (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

And although he very politely corrects you with:

  • By "worked together closely", I think you mean that we have at times agreed on what the content should look like and you've disagreed. ... BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

... only days later, you repeat the behavior with another false personalization aimed at me, with:[3]

  • "SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus do have a history of collaborating together for years, however, which makes it interesting that SandyGeorgia began editing again at the same time this ANI was opened and became involved after NoonIcarus contacted them in their talk page"

and then did not retract when you were questioned on this by another editor, with:[4]

  • but the timing is curious to post something to a talk page which will be usually emailed.

And several days later, you have still not retracted or struck the false claim, in spite of repeated explanations from me ... thereby again derailing and unnecessarily lengthening a discussion.

It pains me to be using my vacation time to deal with this, but this is no longer tolerable. Your insinuations are false. For the record, I have reviewed my email and I have exactly two (count 'em, TWO) very brief email threads with NoonIcarus. One last November where I emailed him a simple question, and he simply responded weeks later. And one from mid-December where NoonIcarus (like dozens of others) emailed me to wish me well after reading on Wikipedia of the real life difficulties I've been going through, and NOTHING else. Sum total of all our emails (and I don't engage any other form of off-Wiki contact either).

That you could turn the well wishes from many editors who watch my talk page and worried that I was gone into something more sinister is repulsive. NoonIcarus has never attempted to sway my editing via any contact on or off Wikipedia. I explained what circumstances led to me having enough time after I saw David Tornheim's ping after I arrived at my son's house to check on Venezuelan content, which led me to the ANI, and yet you haven't struck your insinuation/accusation. And what led me to finally check my email and re-engage somewhat had nothing to do with Venezuelan editing, rather seeing news of developments in the Cassava Sciences debacle led me to review my gmail, where I have google alerts set up, and Tornheim's ping was the first at the top of my email when I logged in.

This whole debacle is another sad example of your behaviors that impede collaboration and result in lengthy threads no one wants to read, and discourages people from participating on Wikipedia. I am again reminding you to check your AGF, avoid personalizing, and confine your commentary to content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And another absurdity about your charge that I just noticed is the timing: you started the ANI on March 12, and although I logged on several times after that to make brief medical edits, I didn't find the ANI until March 28, as a result of seeing Tornheim's ping from March 25, after I arrived for Holy Week vacation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I genuinely apologize about not seeing you discuss the loss of your two close friends. While I have no excuses and should have been more thorough with my reading, I too am going through some real life events, so reading through the ANI (which everyone can admittedly describe as messy) and replying has been where I have been focusing my limited time. So in the ANI mess, I didn't see what you were experiencing and only saw NoonIcarus adding a short "+1" to a section that was started months ago in January. From my understanding, you said that you are emailed when additions to your talk page occur, so this seemed to be an apparent attempt by NoonIcarus to get your attention in some way while the ANI was reaching a pretty clear consensus to topic ban them. I was not insinuating that you two were emailing each other, so maybe I'm not the only one having comments lost in translation through these walls of discussions. Again, it's not that I was having bad faith in you, but specifically in NoonIcarus as they have arguably performed unconventional canvassing in an ANI before and have largely lost the faith of other users who have had encounters with them. As for the date that you became active in editing again, I thought that it was an interesting coincidence with the ANI's opening, but looking at what I said, it was inappropriate and I'm sorry. Regarding the canvassing claims and such, I will strike out some of it now that I have a time to respond and see the full situation in front of me.
Now, to explain my concern about why NoonIcarus was trying to get your attention, it is that you defended NoonIcarus (then Jamez42) vigorously in the 2020 ANI, so it seemed like a possible stealth attempt at votestacking when I first saw the notification without seeing/recognizing the context you provided. Similar to how NoonIcarus said that they were "the last one remaining" (inaccurately), you said that they were "the only editor" that "has broad knowledge of what all the sources say." I'm not sure if things have changed since 2020, but NoonIcarus' inappropriate "failed verification" removals, their attempt to make a fringe and extremist source more accepted, their use of an essay as policy to remove citations, alongside the concerns of numerous editors, makes it seem like this "broad knowledge" no longer exists, only a deep POV. While this may seem like I'm trying to accuse you of misbehavior, again, you have your own opinion on NoonIcarus that seemed approving towards them; this in itself is not bad (we all have different opinions on different topics), but this is why I was having some concerns about them specifically trying to get your attention in their own time of need. This is also the reason why I noted past, significant collaborations NoonIcarus had with other editors; not to minimize the other editors in some way, but to track potential canvassing from NoonIcarus if necessary. Hopefully this is understandable for you.
As for your opinion on my editing, I kinda jumped headfirst into controversial topics when I began editing on Venezuela, so apologies if I was reckless. Believe it or not, I have done my best to follow your advice and actually remember specific tips that you have given me. You informed me about alphabetti spaghetti and other linked abbreviations; you can see here and in my other recent edits that I have improved on this. After we had our discussions about BLPs, I asked you for help on a BLP so I could learn some more from you. You informed me about copying within Wikipedia and I asked a patroller how I was doing 2 months later; they said my edits have improved. Formatting citations in a particular way seems to be an issue for me; you asked me to provide chapters to citations in a particular way in the past, though JArthur1984 said that "if the point is wanting to add chapter titles to the citations so it will be easier for readers who are in a similar position to you and reading from Kindle, I think that's nice. But it's not incumbent upon WMrapids to add." Overall, I proved that my sources were not inaccurate in the ANI (despite their lack of specificity) and reflecting on citation edits, I admittedly may have become lazy after facing constant stonewalls from NoonIcarus since I thought (and evidenced with the ANI) that detailed citations did not really matter to them. Like what JArthur1984 said, I felt like users were trying to make me create citations to fit their own preferences, but after seeing the recommendation from Goldsztajn in the ANI, I will remember to be as thorough as possible with my citations.
So after following much of your advice, it is disheartening that you have ignored the concerns of I and others about NoonIcarus' poor editing, instead deciding to focus on my shortcomings that I have tried to improve while also facing adverse editing conditions. You seem to be very interested in the dispute between NoonIcarus and I. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have information on the dispute stored at home? It seems like your stored information is only directed towards me, so this is concerning, especially since you appear eager to "suggest sanctions/warnings". You also have taken the time out of your family holiday, your recent losses and your own physical difficulties to become involved in an already lengthy ANI discussion. I admire the determination that you have and understand that this may be a way for you to cope with what may be going on, but I hope that this is not something personal. As I have detailed above, my opinion for you has always been one of respect, even if we did have disagreements or differing opinions.
On another note, in this edit on the ANI, you said that I "reinstated a POV tag that had been resolved, [and] re-added UNDUE material that had been many times discussed, without engaging talk". However, I only reverted things back to the way you left it since there wasn't much discussion (maybe I missed it?) and NoonIcarus began making edits on their own. I know this may be asking a lot since you have had to be so patient with me, but could you strike this as an act of good faith as well?
Like you, I am getting exhausted of editing Venezuelan topics, but I may pop in from time to time and when I do, we need to have good faith in each other moving forward. We both seem to be skeptical of one another to some extent, but I can tell that you genuinely want what is right for the project. I seriously feel like an idiot for missing your comments about losing your friends, so I'll probably be forever apologetic about that. With this response here on my talk page, I am very sincerely trying to make improvements and I have faith that this isn't just bait to get a response so you can add it to a dispute collection stored somewhere in order to pick me apart later.
Have a great Easter, Sandy, and I hope you only get good news going forward! WMrapids (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was quoted here and tagged as a result, but I can’t really tell what the essence of the continued disagreement is. Is the citation issue still a part of it? JArthur1984 (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JArthur1984: You can disregard it, was just discussing a past issue. My apologies. WMrapids (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, I'm not annoyed. Best of luck to all in working through the situation. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan politics opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Primefac (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Currently discussing these concerns with an administrator, understanding that this block occurred out of caution. Will provide a more formal appeal, if necessary.--WMrapids (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Well, seeing how things are developing, it may be more appropriate to provide a public explanation since other users may be skeptical or have lost trust in me. After discussing the situation with an administrator and reviewing some policies on the appeal process, I wanted to wait about a week before making an appeal as I did not want to be disruptive. It's true, I had a second account (with a little over 100 edits) that I initially used for privacy reasons believing it was a legitimate use, though when I was drawn into controversial topics on this main account, I stopped editing with the second account to avoid inappropriate interactions. After some discussions and reviewing policy, I now know that what I did was inappropriate and understand why my account was blocked out of caution. While a block was a valid decision, I want to appeal for an unblock and guarantee to you all that I have learned my lesson that having a second undisclosed account was a mistake.

When the block occurred, I was initially confused since I did not participate in acts "to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban or sanction" (see "This page in a nutshell"). I reviewed my main interactions between my two accounts; they were primarily due to a category being placed in a range of related articles and some prose additions that were not made in any deceitful manner to affect consensus or edit conflicts whatsoever. Confused by this, my first UTRS appeal request was a failure and denied because I was primarily asking what had happened since I genuinely didn't understand what I had done improper. After discussing the situation with the administrator that denied the first appeal, they explained that any interaction whatsoever between the accounts was a violation and that I could have disclosed the links privately to administrators. All of this was new to me and I now comprehend this clearly. Since I did not have any malicious intent with having two accounts, I did not know that such behavior was a policy violation or that I could have made a private disclosure. This is still no excuse and it truly was my ignorance of policy which caused me to be blocked. On my part, I want to explain that my original intention was to use my second account for sensitive topics (politics, etc.) and my main account for local editing since I did not want individuals who disagreed with any edits knowing where I live (just look at my username...), believing that a second account for legitimate use was appropriate for privacy. While some may question this motive, it was not done to avoid scrutiny in any way either since the edits on my second account were quite limited in number.

So, now that this can of worms has now been opened, I'm a little bit more comfortable with addressing all of this publicly with the community. To sum things up, I made a mistake and should have reviewed sockpuppet policy more thoroughly before having two accounts. I’m not here to excuse my actions at all, I only wanted to provide my rationale concerning my own privacy. I apologize for this disruption and can promise that this will not happen again as I take pride in being accountable for my actions. If this main account were to be unblocked, I want my second account to remain blocked and I agree to not edit the articles where these interactions occurred. While also seeing another user recommended a clean start, I am open to being banned from Venezuelan politics for a period of time; it really is the last place I want to be (see section "Thanks for the tag" on my talk page since a link here creates an error). The evidence really does suggest that Venezuelan politics should be recognized as a contentious topic.

Hopefully these requests demonstrate that I have learned my lesson and that the previous interactions had no deeper motive nor have any future motive. Since warmer weather is approaching here, I also want to share that I really want to only focus on local topics for awhile and contribute with more location images moving forward (I'm over the drama). While this request may be procedurally declined (I'm not sure if a UTRS request is the same as this), this request still helps me feel better since I want to ensure to the Wikipedia community that I am being as transparent as possible for you all. I have nothing to hide and if any other user has questions or concerns, feel free to comment here on my talk page. WMrapids (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Well, seeing how things are developing, it may be more appropriate to provide a public explanation since other users may be skeptical or have lost trust in me. After discussing the situation with an administrator and reviewing some policies on the appeal process, I wanted to wait about a week before making an appeal as I did not want to be disruptive. It's true, I had a second account (with a little over 100 edits) that I initially used for privacy reasons believing it was a [[WP:GOODSOCK|legitimate use]], though when I was drawn into controversial topics on this main account, I stopped editing with the second account to avoid inappropriate interactions. After some discussions and reviewing policy, I now know that what I did was inappropriate and understand why my account was blocked out of caution. While a block was a valid decision, I want to appeal for an unblock and guarantee to you all that I have learned my lesson that having a second undisclosed account was a mistake. When the block occurred, I was initially confused since I did not participate in acts "to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban or sanction" (see [[WP:SOCK|"This page in a nutshell"]]). I reviewed my main interactions between my two accounts; they were primarily due to a category being placed in a range of related articles and some prose additions that were not made in any deceitful manner to affect consensus or edit conflicts whatsoever. Confused by this, my first UTRS appeal request was a failure and denied because I was primarily asking what had happened since I genuinely didn't understand what I had done improper. After discussing the situation with the administrator that denied the first appeal, they explained that ''any'' interaction whatsoever between the accounts was a violation and that I could have disclosed the links privately to administrators. All of this was new to me and I now comprehend this clearly. Since I did not have any malicious intent with having two accounts, I did not know that such behavior was a policy violation or that I could have made a private disclosure. This is still no excuse and it truly was my ignorance of policy which caused me to be blocked. On my part, I want to explain that my original intention was to use my second account for sensitive topics (politics, etc.) and my main account for local editing since I did not want individuals who disagreed with any edits knowing where I live (just look at my username...), believing that a second account for [[WP:GOODSOCK|legitimate use]] was appropriate for privacy. While some may question this motive, it was not done to avoid [[WP:SCRUTINY|scrutiny]] in any way either since the edits on my second account were quite limited in number. So, now that this can of worms has now been opened, I'm a little bit more comfortable with addressing all of this publicly with the community. To sum things up, I made a mistake and should have reviewed sockpuppet policy more thoroughly before having two accounts. I’m not here to excuse my actions at all, I only wanted to provide my rationale concerning my own privacy. I apologize for this disruption and can promise that this will not happen again as I take pride in being accountable for my actions. If this main account were to be unblocked, I want my second account to remain blocked and I agree to not edit the articles where these interactions occurred. While also seeing another user recommended a [[WP:CLEANSTART|clean start]], I am open to being banned from Venezuelan politics for a period of time; it really is the last place I want to be (see section "Thanks for the tag" on my talk page since a link here creates an error). The evidence really does suggest that Venezuelan politics should be recognized as a [[WP:CTOP|contentious topic]]. Hopefully these requests demonstrate that I have learned my lesson and that the previous interactions had no deeper motive nor have any future motive. Since warmer weather is approaching here, I also want to share that I really want to only focus on local topics for awhile and contribute with more location images moving forward (I'm over the drama). While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Composing_your_request_to_be_unblocked this request may be procedurally declined] (I'm not sure if a UTRS request is the same as this), this request still helps me feel better since I want to ensure to the Wikipedia community that I am being as transparent as possible for you all. I have nothing to hide and if any other user has questions or concerns, feel free to comment here on my talk page. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids#top|talk]]) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Well, seeing how things are developing, it may be more appropriate to provide a public explanation since other users may be skeptical or have lost trust in me. After discussing the situation with an administrator and reviewing some policies on the appeal process, I wanted to wait about a week before making an appeal as I did not want to be disruptive. It's true, I had a second account (with a little over 100 edits) that I initially used for privacy reasons believing it was a [[WP:GOODSOCK|legitimate use]], though when I was drawn into controversial topics on this main account, I stopped editing with the second account to avoid inappropriate interactions. After some discussions and reviewing policy, I now know that what I did was inappropriate and understand why my account was blocked out of caution. While a block was a valid decision, I want to appeal for an unblock and guarantee to you all that I have learned my lesson that having a second undisclosed account was a mistake. When the block occurred, I was initially confused since I did not participate in acts "to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban or sanction" (see [[WP:SOCK|"This page in a nutshell"]]). I reviewed my main interactions between my two accounts; they were primarily due to a category being placed in a range of related articles and some prose additions that were not made in any deceitful manner to affect consensus or edit conflicts whatsoever. Confused by this, my first UTRS appeal request was a failure and denied because I was primarily asking what had happened since I genuinely didn't understand what I had done improper. After discussing the situation with the administrator that denied the first appeal, they explained that ''any'' interaction whatsoever between the accounts was a violation and that I could have disclosed the links privately to administrators. All of this was new to me and I now comprehend this clearly. Since I did not have any malicious intent with having two accounts, I did not know that such behavior was a policy violation or that I could have made a private disclosure. This is still no excuse and it truly was my ignorance of policy which caused me to be blocked. On my part, I want to explain that my original intention was to use my second account for sensitive topics (politics, etc.) and my main account for local editing since I did not want individuals who disagreed with any edits knowing where I live (just look at my username...), believing that a second account for [[WP:GOODSOCK|legitimate use]] was appropriate for privacy. While some may question this motive, it was not done to avoid [[WP:SCRUTINY|scrutiny]] in any way either since the edits on my second account were quite limited in number. So, now that this can of worms has now been opened, I'm a little bit more comfortable with addressing all of this publicly with the community. To sum things up, I made a mistake and should have reviewed sockpuppet policy more thoroughly before having two accounts. I’m not here to excuse my actions at all, I only wanted to provide my rationale concerning my own privacy. I apologize for this disruption and can promise that this will not happen again as I take pride in being accountable for my actions. If this main account were to be unblocked, I want my second account to remain blocked and I agree to not edit the articles where these interactions occurred. While also seeing another user recommended a [[WP:CLEANSTART|clean start]], I am open to being banned from Venezuelan politics for a period of time; it really is the last place I want to be (see section "Thanks for the tag" on my talk page since a link here creates an error). The evidence really does suggest that Venezuelan politics should be recognized as a [[WP:CTOP|contentious topic]]. Hopefully these requests demonstrate that I have learned my lesson and that the previous interactions had no deeper motive nor have any future motive. Since warmer weather is approaching here, I also want to share that I really want to only focus on local topics for awhile and contribute with more location images moving forward (I'm over the drama). While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Composing_your_request_to_be_unblocked this request may be procedurally declined] (I'm not sure if a UTRS request is the same as this), this request still helps me feel better since I want to ensure to the Wikipedia community that I am being as transparent as possible for you all. I have nothing to hide and if any other user has questions or concerns, feel free to comment here on my talk page. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids#top|talk]]) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Well, seeing how things are developing, it may be more appropriate to provide a public explanation since other users may be skeptical or have lost trust in me. After discussing the situation with an administrator and reviewing some policies on the appeal process, I wanted to wait about a week before making an appeal as I did not want to be disruptive. It's true, I had a second account (with a little over 100 edits) that I initially used for privacy reasons believing it was a [[WP:GOODSOCK|legitimate use]], though when I was drawn into controversial topics on this main account, I stopped editing with the second account to avoid inappropriate interactions. After some discussions and reviewing policy, I now know that what I did was inappropriate and understand why my account was blocked out of caution. While a block was a valid decision, I want to appeal for an unblock and guarantee to you all that I have learned my lesson that having a second undisclosed account was a mistake. When the block occurred, I was initially confused since I did not participate in acts "to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban or sanction" (see [[WP:SOCK|"This page in a nutshell"]]). I reviewed my main interactions between my two accounts; they were primarily due to a category being placed in a range of related articles and some prose additions that were not made in any deceitful manner to affect consensus or edit conflicts whatsoever. Confused by this, my first UTRS appeal request was a failure and denied because I was primarily asking what had happened since I genuinely didn't understand what I had done improper. After discussing the situation with the administrator that denied the first appeal, they explained that ''any'' interaction whatsoever between the accounts was a violation and that I could have disclosed the links privately to administrators. All of this was new to me and I now comprehend this clearly. Since I did not have any malicious intent with having two accounts, I did not know that such behavior was a policy violation or that I could have made a private disclosure. This is still no excuse and it truly was my ignorance of policy which caused me to be blocked. On my part, I want to explain that my original intention was to use my second account for sensitive topics (politics, etc.) and my main account for local editing since I did not want individuals who disagreed with any edits knowing where I live (just look at my username...), believing that a second account for [[WP:GOODSOCK|legitimate use]] was appropriate for privacy. While some may question this motive, it was not done to avoid [[WP:SCRUTINY|scrutiny]] in any way either since the edits on my second account were quite limited in number. So, now that this can of worms has now been opened, I'm a little bit more comfortable with addressing all of this publicly with the community. To sum things up, I made a mistake and should have reviewed sockpuppet policy more thoroughly before having two accounts. I’m not here to excuse my actions at all, I only wanted to provide my rationale concerning my own privacy. I apologize for this disruption and can promise that this will not happen again as I take pride in being accountable for my actions. If this main account were to be unblocked, I want my second account to remain blocked and I agree to not edit the articles where these interactions occurred. While also seeing another user recommended a [[WP:CLEANSTART|clean start]], I am open to being banned from Venezuelan politics for a period of time; it really is the last place I want to be (see section "Thanks for the tag" on my talk page since a link here creates an error). The evidence really does suggest that Venezuelan politics should be recognized as a [[WP:CTOP|contentious topic]]. Hopefully these requests demonstrate that I have learned my lesson and that the previous interactions had no deeper motive nor have any future motive. Since warmer weather is approaching here, I also want to share that I really want to only focus on local topics for awhile and contribute with more location images moving forward (I'm over the drama). While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Composing_your_request_to_be_unblocked this request may be procedurally declined] (I'm not sure if a UTRS request is the same as this), this request still helps me feel better since I want to ensure to the Wikipedia community that I am being as transparent as possible for you all. I have nothing to hide and if any other user has questions or concerns, feel free to comment here on my talk page. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids#top|talk]]) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Primefac: please could you review the request above? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re "While also seeing another user recommended a clean start, I am open to being banned from Venezuelan politics for a period of time"; I did not recommend a clean start. I do ask if CLEAN START has already been breached. Did you edit under another account in Venezuela politics, before the WMrapids account entered there, with prior disagreements with NoonIcarus? Also, the behaviors have also occurred in Peruvian politics, so Latin America probably would be a better target. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the concern about the second account. Again, this second account was for privacy reasons and I would feel more comfortable discussing the details about this explicitly in a private manner with ArbCom if needed (It appears the second account was blocked without any additional tags to this account for a reason, since there are known privacy issues). As I said, I'm trying to be as transparent as possible due to my own privacy concerns and I emphasize that the second account was not used for deceptive purposes at all.
Regarding a broad Latin American political topics ban, I'm not opposed to it if necessary as I sincerely want to focus on local topics for now. However, it is clear that the serious editing issues arose with my entry into Venezuelan politics. I had actually exposed multiple sockpuppets being used in Peruvian political topics myself (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Búfalo Barreto/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armando AZ/Archive), so I recognize actual misuse of multiple accounts.
While those accounts were used for deceptive purposes, mine wasn't. You would think that I would have been more observant about sockpuppet policy details (no interactions and providing private disclosure) due to the previous sockpuppets, but I ignorantly overlooked the intricacies of such policies and this is where I'm at. However, I have now learned my lesson. I respectively request that you can all understand my circumstances, can recognize my privacy concerns and know that my only goal is to contribute with building an outstanding encyclopedia. WMrapids (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Saw your ban when checking on an article (topic unrelated to the conflict). Hope it's still appropriate to post 2 cents. From what I see about the 2 checkuser-blocked accounts: Cases where the same topic was edited (with time difference between the two accounts, but not that long time)? - Yes. Used as "support" for a disagreement/conflict with other user/s or similar hard deceive/mislead-attempts (like double voting, circumventing)? - No. You were at least careless about the 2 accounts, since there wasn't just one topic interaction and not years apart or so (can happen as freak accident). The danger then is, others may think then the 2 accounts are different people. I believe you're sincere though when you say that you did not intent to deceive (no misleading method visible, it would for example otherwise probably have been tempting to use it as a fake supporter for the conflict with another user). Since your account is attached to some personal info, to make a 2nd more private account is believable, there might be further arguments for it. Security/Privacy is a legitimate reason according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, which unfortunately here collided with the inappropriate use (contributing to same page). That's how I would weigh up the arguments. Idk how such cases have been decided here in the past. --Casra (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOCK under the privacy provision says "the account may be publicly linked to your main account for sanctions" and "If the connection is discovered, prior notification is not a 'get out of jail free card'." While I hugely respect the need for security/privacy when editing controversial topics like Nicolas Maduro, and would easily endorse the need for an alternate account in such a case, if one continues making the same controversial edits from a new account and ends up as party to an arbcase, the behaviors of all accounts are open to examination; the policy page says "users should not expect that checkusers nor arbitrators will act to conceal the connection if it is made on-wiki". If the need for security/privacy is so great (and I suspect it is), then it's not wise to continue making the same kinds of edits that led to the need for privacy in the first place. A clean start means one doesn't go right back to the same topics, same behaviors, same battles. And if they do, examination of the behaviors of the previous account is on the table. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
(edit conflict) Just a reminder that, if I understand correctly, appeal requests aren't polls.
If it is alright to ask @Esequiba:, how did you learn about this block? Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at their contribution history to review their recent edits and noticed the block. Most of my activity is observing recent edits to articles while logged out (I've already read the articles and so I just look at the additions or changes). Out of curiosity, I sometimes look at the recent history of users who happen to modify the articles that I edit. I've looked at yours in the past also as you edit a lot of articles that I'm interested in. Most users are like me, we are just in the background. Esequiba (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids can you please clarify exactly what you mean by a privacy reason for having the second account? Do you mean that because others wouldn't have known that it was you that was making the edits that they wouldn't subjected the edits being made by your second account to the same level of scrutiny as they would have if they would have known it was you? Is that what you mean by privacy? TarnishedPathtalk 14:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: It was related to this account being used for local editing and the second account shortly being used for political topics. As I became more interested in political topics, my intention was to have my main account for local edits only where I could be less careful about who I am and the second account that was separate from where my location is in order to maintain privacy. I do not have any other active account. ArbCom has since been notified about all of the details and I'm leaving it in their hands, respectively. Honestly, if I continue to be blocked, I understand and recognize ArbCom's decision since after reviewing all of the details provided, they have reached that this would be the best outcome for the project. WMrapids (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Metro Health, University of Michigan Health.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Metro Health, University of Michigan Health.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&oldid=1220570108"