User talk:RottenBoroughs

RottenBoroughs, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi RottenBoroughs! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Christian Wakeford, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite which content you are referring to? (The article was over-cited if anything IMHO.) RottenBoroughs (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were trying to cite primary sources in a BLP. We are not qualified to interpret them. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Citing a primary source is not equivalent to not being cited. I will await Drmies's own advice on what they were referring to.

2. Once again, [Sutesh]'s comment is hypocritical. For example, the new page you added "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_God_%E2%80%93_Sr._Celine_Kannanaikal" has been removed within hours for "unambiguous copyright infringement". Before it was removed, it contained much subjective content. Can you refer the editing guidelines of WP before affecting others' contributions?

Eh? That Servant of God thing is nothing to do with me. Sitush (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link came up from your page. (FYI, I have no intention of continuing discussion on this with you.)

Please explain re Talk:Christian Wakeford

Hello, RottenBoroughs. Can you explain why you deleted the replies of IP 146.200.49.138[1] under the guise of a minor "formatting" edit and then denied doing so[2]? Was it some kind of mistake? When it was pointed out,[3] you failed to fix it, instead attacking the IP for "offensive language".[4] Of course you didn't know the IP was actually an experienced editor on a new phone, but there is no excuse for treating IPs worse than other contributors. Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

"Can you explain why ... _under the guise_ of a minor "formatting" edit".

Can I remind you not to employ biased language that attempts to suggest bad intention [re. common sense and "WP:AFG"] and (b) 'Do not bite the newcomers' [ref. "WP:DNB"]?

FYI, I went back to my previous response to add a 'second colon' at the start of the paragraph, as I had found this double-indented the paragraph. When I went to publish it, there was an editing clash, which appeared to me to show the only difference between the previous and this revision was my additional comments (now double-indented), which I thus accepted as 'current'. I had no intention to delete other text. And hence why it was described as a 'formatting' change.

The greater concern to administrators, I suggest, should be the pattern of un-collaborative, evasive and rude comments and edits made by user Sutesh. This is before we turn to that user's *own* " obvious hit-job" on the updates to the Christian Wakeford page. In response to criticism, Sutesh responded "No idea what you are on about"; then went on to disparage others' contributions without basis, and "put your brain in gear". Is their behaviour of concern to you, Bishonen? In addition to the rude behaviour, user Sutesh avoided addressing the criticism of their changes.

Additional point - there is no evidence to suggest anyone was 'attacked' (criticised, yes). The rude behaviour was by an experienced user. Ditto, no-one has "treated an IP worse than any other contributor" - not least because they have stated they are the same person. Can you refer to where "an IP is treated worse than a contributor" to justify your criticism please? RottenBoroughs (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you also accuse the IP of "vandalism" in this edit summary (and also that by then you did know it was Sitush). Don't do that in the future unless you're actually reverting vandalism, as it's considered a serious attack. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for what the word means here. Bishonen | tålk 15:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The earlier page edit by me added that the MP's change to their declarations of financial interests was made four months late, and thus was in breach of the House of Commons Code of Conduct, Chapter 1, which provides for a 28 day window. This was clear and fully cited in the original paragraph. It thus complies to WP:CITE and WP:BOLD.

User Sutesh removed the statement on the basis it was a "common and trivial matter". [See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Wakeford&oldid=990865938]. Sutesh's change is not cited (which other MPs have declared 4 months late? [WP:CITE]) - and their comments are heavily opinionated (in whose opinion is ignoring the Code of Conduct trivial?. Ref. WP:NPOV.)

From where I am sitting this appears to be a pile-on of administrator 'mates', adding opinions and unsubstantiated criticism, while criticising others for this without merit. RottenBoroughs (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps User Drmies would also like to contribute their opinion?

Regards. RottenBoroughs (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When we get a news source like this, we can reflect it. Until then, it is your interpretation of a primary source and, as I intimated, is trivial and commonplace. The Commons authorities routinely accept explanations for delayed changes. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply repeating opinions and fails to provide any citations to support the claim of it being commonplace - and in so doing fails to address earlier criticism of the same. Additionally, it introduces new, irrelevant and also unsubstantiated claims.

FYI - acceptance of something late does not equate to it not being late. It is a true observation that the declaration was filed later than the code of conduct allows - it does not require an arbiter to understand this.RottenBoroughs (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our role to interpret and criticise, especially not in BLPs. I am Sitush, BTW. Please note that changing a ping, eg for a typo, does not then cause the ping to happen - you get one go at pinging a user, unless the software has improved in recent months.

You are now not only attacking me, saying I am politically motivated, but also two longstanding admins. It's a quick route to sanctions. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Are admins beyond criticism? You keep using emotive and dramatic language like "attack". No one is doing that. Your rude language (already quoted) and opinionated and uncited edits (already quoted) have been criticised - in line with WP policies I add. You have failed to respond to these points, when it has been pointed out on several occasions.

Probably worth adding that when you cannot spell the names of editors correctly, it doesn't bode well for your abilities to interpret primary sources even if it was acceptable. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to take any opportunity to respond to the many criticisms levelled at your behaviour and revisions. This does not bode well for the editorial independence or maturity of any content you "contribute". Will you be responding to the criticisms? RottenBoroughs (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded. You even deleted some of my responses on the article talk. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your response to the criticism of your conduct?

I have explained above how an accidental over-write of a parallel edit may have occurred.

Please take a step back. Make a cup of tea or whatever. I have responded to your comments about edits to the article and am trying to ignore your less salubrious stuff as best I can. If you cannot wind things in a bit, you may find that your break is enforced rather than voluntary. There is only so much explanation can be given before it becomes apparent that there may be competence issues and I assure you that it is not me who needs to be concerned about WP:CIR. Big breath, slow down, read the policies etc and think. Then ask. Sitush (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is patronising Sitush. You have simply resorted to threatening people who criticise you. Also, as you have now acknowledged, you are simply ignoring criticism of your opinion-based and uncited comments. Your comments suggest you expect your rude behaviour to be protected by administrator mates. We will wait to see whether they take an impartial, mature and balanced approach to your comments.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33