User talk:Worldedixor

Talk Page for Worldedixor

This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice.

Assume Good Faith - Opinion - 28 October 2013

It is my opinion that one should communicate with others on Wikipedia as if he or she is talking "face to face" to Queen Elizabeth with all the video cameras recording everything that is being said. Then re-read what he or she writes before communicating with others. This will go a long way as to increase the likelihood that what you mean to say to someone in good faith, in a silent medium where the tone of voice and non-verbal cues are non-existent, and what is perceived by others are exactly the same. My biggest disappointment with Wikipedia is the level of incivility and aggression on the part of some established editors and admins.

This is my opinion on MY Talk page. By reading my Talk page, you must agree NOT to use any of my opinions against me nor "assume that you know my intent". Otherwise please do not read my talk page.

Vision

I envision an improved Wikipedia where everyone strictly adheres to Wikipedia Principles without favoritism.

Assuming good faith is at the core of "el calor humano" between human beings.

I am well-meaning and I contribute in good faith.

If you disagree with my edit, or I inadvertently violate WP Principles, use my "private" Talk page to let me know in a respectful manner and I will be willingly responsive, as long as you provide me with the exact provision in WP policy that I violated, as well as state the policy. Let me explain:

1. As an example, deleting or changing an edit and just leaving a [WP:Other stuff exists] to show your superiority is very often seen as patronizing and "intentionally provocative".

2. By contrast, assuming good faith and saying: "comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes", please see [WP:Other stuff exists] is seen as "helpful". It only takes few seconds to "copy and paste" the exact provision in the humongous policy but it makes a world of difference in "human interaction" and "fostering cooperation between editors".

I am respectful and enjoy a civil, mutually empowering debate. I don't deal well with a hostile, chauvinist, pompous and patronizing approach. So, those who can't help it are better off asking someone decent to contact me on your behalf if you disagree with my edit. You will get what you want, conflict will be avoided, and Wikipedia will benefit. Worldedixor (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

[update: I am opting to go back to editing, and Wikipedia has admin m.o.p. and the other "unbiased" and well-meaning admins to thank]

I will recuse myself from contributing and editing and will openly express my opinion on my Talk Page for the record.

1. I am not known to remain silent when faced with injustice. It is my opinion that Wikipedia's duplicity inflicted injustice on me and on itself to protect and further "enable" a darling super-editor. I had NO idea that, in this day an age, I would be at the mercy of an insensitive "exclusive club" where my abuser is their "darling" and a flagrant policy violation is "endearingly" overlooked and left without sanctions.

2. I was verbally abused on Wikipedia. I felt violated after being humiliated, cursed and insulted in a despicable manner that is so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized society.

3. I felt so strongly about this personal attack, a flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy, that I sent a notice with a verifiable "strong and convincing evidence" of the abuse at [1].

4. I copied the notice below for easy reference.

5. In my opinion, my abuser walked away with a gentle slap on the wrist, and with a great sense of entitlement to continue doing what he has always done, and a flagrant and violent violation of policy and its supporting "clear and convincing evidence" meant absolutely nothing.

6. The lack of sensitivity, justice, equitable policy and care, even by the admin who dismissed my complaint was self-evident: "Yes, AtG can be a bit rough sometimes, and sometimes he sounds like a total asshole (note how carefully I comment on tone, not on editor! Bbb23 would be proud of me)". This is coming in the form of a public comment on my complaint of abuse from what is supposed to be an "unbiased" admin.

7. I received no protection for "whistleblowing". Retaliation by "the supportive friends" came within seconds of my posting the notice as can be seen below.

8. I copied the notice and all interactions/threat/evidence in its entirety for full disclosure.

Worldedixor (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a permanent block of user AndyTheGrump

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=578772290&oldid=578772135[2]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If at all possible, I respectfully ask for an unbiased admin who has had no dealings with AndyTheGrump whatsoever in the past, if that’s at all possible, and preferably who does not even know who he is, so that he or she can have a fresh look at this matter and JUSTLY adjudicate this matter without any conflict of interest.

I also seek protection as a “Wikipedia whistleblower”, if such protection is affordable, as one incident of subtle retaliation by an apparent "friend of Andy" has already occurred today, as well as a "restraining order" against AndyTheGrump and his future accounts, if such protection is afforded.

I sincerely thank Wikipedia in advance.

PREAMBLE

It is no secret that AndyTheGrump with his superior policy knowledge is the “darling” of many “well-meaning” admins in Wikipedia who may or may not know his dark side, and who genuinely try to remain unbiased, but their “soft spot for darling Andy” is unmistakable, and what may as well be called the “Blue wall of silence” couldn’t be any clearer after I saw the way my legitimate complaint was handled yesterday as no admin wants to be the one “incommodating Andy”…

I would genuinely like to think that Wikipedia is better than allow, and systematically “enable/give license” to super-editors like AndyTheGrump, who has been blocked more times than most (please refer to his block history), and has shown a systematic pattern of "selectively" using Wikipedia policy as a pretext to abuse and demoralize editors with a grumpy, trollish (instigating not vandalism), nasty, bad faith, uncivilized, antisocial, and passive-aggressive behavior, hinder their “good faith” progress with petty warring edits, badgering and nitpicking, frequently reverting edits seconds after they are made even when WP:BLP clearly allows the editor to insert an edit, and baiting them in a patronizing manner, knowing that they do not know policy well, and he has the edge, while knowing that he is the “darling” of many admins.

Such uncivilized, patronizing, indecent and abusive behavior is so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized society. It robs many well-meaning editors like me, acting in good faith, who just want to share their knowledge, edit in good faith and return to their normal lives, of any incentive to contribute to Wikipedia. Such conduct is also not in Wikepedia's best interest and is completely inconsistent with its CIVILZED culture of harmonious assumption of good faith.

I just want to edit in good faith. I come from a good, highly respected family and I deserve to ALWAYS be treated like an INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEING. I am not a street person to be called names, cursed and be the emotional dumping ground on Wikipedia for random super-editors to take their frustrations on me without even knowing me or my station in life. Most importantly, normal human beings have feelings and feelings are fragile. I can assure you that he would be completely different, probably act like a gentleman, had he being talking to me in person.

I must applaud the good admin Bbb23 (talk), who, albeit clearly having “a soft spot for Andy”, did the right thing by removing the personal attack by AndyTheGrump and “courageously” exposing the true nature of AndyTheGrump, acknowledging the futility of my patient and numerous attempts to reason with him on one particular edit dispute in a civilized debate and good faith:

• “I wouldn't continue the discussion with Andy on the talk page as it's not going to go anywhere. I've removed Andy's personal attack against you as it was truly nasty.” [3]

THIS NOTICE

A. Carefull scrutinizing AndyTheGrump’s dark record will reveal a mountain of evidence to justify the permanent block. However, for this particular notice, I will bring one strong and convincing evidentiary incident of flagrant abuse and complete disregard for the dignity of other human beings. He wrote this to me publicly when I pleaded with him to "treat me like an intelligent human being" after "patiently" trying to reason with him in a civilized manner:

I will treat you as I find you - as a clueless and obnoxious little shit, with all the psychological attributes of a two-year-old. Now go run to mummy and complain about what the big man called you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

[4] [5]

B. I will also disclose that even though I felt so strong about this matter that I brought it up to the attention of the good, well-meaning admin Mark Arsten who, in all fairness, has shown even-handedness previously, he did not block AndyTheGrump as not to “incommodate Andy”, and referred me to WP:ANI “if I'd like to seek sanctions against AndyTheGrump", and then “hid” my report that exposes AndyTheGrump. [6] [7]

C. For full disclosure, I will also expose AndyTheGrump's self-description that goes to shows where all such grumpiness and abusive behavior came from, and that is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's harmonious and civilized culture and "try to educate" assumption of good faith, as widely displayed by well-meaning admins.

My Name is Andy, and I am a Grump. Well, you'll probably have figured that out from my username. I've not yet determined whether Grumpiness is an infliction or a Human Right, though I'm inclined to the latter view. As for further autobiographical details, I'll remain relatively anonymous for now, beyond stating that I'm male, old enough to know better (if not always wise enough), and educated sufficiently well to understand how little I can ever know. I'm also prone to writing over-long, unnecessarily convoluted sentences (with unnecessary parenthetical insertions and unnecessary repetition of the same words); often with dubious punctuation, which I'll leave for other editors to clarify, disambiguate, and otherwise improve on, while I concentrate on addressing the core of the topic in hand (if I can remember what it was by the time I've written this much...). I can sometimes write short pithy sentences, however. [8]

D. I just want to add that, in my opinion, uncivilized, indecent and abusive conduct by super-editors like AndyTheGrump are perhaps the main reason for the widespread Criticism of Wikipeda article and thousands of negative reviews all around the world at a time it is striving to establish credibility and make justifiable fundraising appeals to families like ours. [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldedixor (talk • contribs) 00:57, 26 October (UTC) 2013‎ Worldedixor (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Worldedixor (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

And yet you can't seem to be bothered signing your posts here or on Andy's page when you notified him.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mark Miller for giving one more evidence of what I stated above. But you are 100% in the right. Please forgive me as it was an unintentional error, and thanks to you, I just fixed it. have a blessed day... Worldedixor (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh....this is gonna be a popcorn thread I see.......--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I will deal with the substance of this later - if anyone shows any signs of taking it seriously after looking at Worldedixor's recent edit history (and not so recent - his/her edits at DHgate.com are as good an example of why Wikipedia doesn't need Worldedixor's 'expertise' as one could possibly find). Meanwhile, a couple of points for Worldedixor. Firstly there is no protection for 'whistleblowers' here - see WP:BOOMERANG. And secondly, if you are going to make allegations about "subtle retaliation" by others, you had damned well produce the evidence - I will freely admit that my behaviour wasn't at its best, but I see no reason why you should be permitted to make wild allegations about others without justification. Put up, or shut up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, Worldedixor, Andy was being perfectly civil with you until your umpteenth freak attack. I look at the fact that you have been arguing on the wrong side of policy up and down Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk, seem to exhibit ownership behavior on that same talk page, and based on this conversation seem to view your disputes with Andy as some kind of battleground. You seem in general to be extremely quick to accuse people of being mean to you when they have done nothing of the sort, for instance at Talk:Aida_Nikolaychuk#YouTube_links. Frankly, Andy is being more than respectful to you in that exchange.

What you really need to do is take a step back and chill. You don't know all the rules yet. Attempts to educate you on the rules are not an attack on your work - they are meant to help your work. Being a collaborative encyclopedia means that there will be disagreements and you won't always get your way. If that's not something you're comfortable with, it's your problem, not Andy's. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 'not knowing the rules yet', Worldedixor has been a contributor since 2006. [10] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Someguy1221 for giving yet one more subtle evidence. I think my intial statement gave all the verifiable facts. I only contribute minimally here and there to Wikipedia. I do not edit full time. Have a good day. Worldedixor (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm a little more sympathetic to Worldedixor's plight than others. At the same time, I don't think the content dispute belongs here, and I don't think Andy will be sanctioned for his comments. My suggestion is that the content dispute be resolved through the usual dispute resolution mechanisms (if Worldedixor clings to naming the son - regardless of who's right I think it's a fairly insignificant thing to get into a snit about), Worldedixor forget about the unpleasant exchange with Andy, and move on, hopefully with a little less drama and verbosity.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23 (talk) for being fair and just. I highly value your opinion but I respectfully disagree. Have a pleasant day, my friend. Worldedixor (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'content dispute', such as it is, was never really the primary issue as far as I'm concerned - it was more a matter of getting Worldedixor to acknowledge that the article had to be properly sourced and encyclopaedic. It is difficult to work alongside someone who objects to the removal of unsourced trivia about the name of Aida Nikolaychuk's dog, and the name of a friend (with no indication of why this friend was even of any significance). [11] And then there is the matter of Worldedixor contacting (or claiming to contact) the subject of the article. [12] (That particular diatribe was the result of me asking Worldedixor where s/he was getting information from [13]). I for one don't think Wikipedia contributors should be contacting article subjects - particularly contributors who seem entirely oblivious to the basics of how Wikipedia works. Right from the start, Worldedixor seemed to want to ignore policy and fill the article with unsourced fluff - apparently expecting hypothetical 'fans of Nikolaychuk' to do all the donkey-work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Worldedixor, please see AndyTheGrump's recent edit history, then see WP:NOPUNISH. AndyTheGrump, please try to work things out here, or else one or more of the administrators here may block you. Best regards, Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 01:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Epicgenius for giving such a threat and an evidence of all that I stated above. This notice is about much more than one edit dispute. It is about indecent conduct and much more. I refer you to my original statement to read carefully. Worldedixor (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Cut to the chase:

• Oppose - and suggest that the editor Worldedixor be blocked for disruptive editing for 48 hours, double the length of the block from the 24th that appears to not to have done the trick of preventing further disruptive behavior. I don't know if DR/N will accept this. Certainly not while this thread is open.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I respect "your support of Andy". However, please respect my wish delineated in my original statement to eliminate conflict of interest. Thank you for your cooperation. Worldedixor (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"Conflict of interest"????? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Do we really have to vote on this (sigh)? I recommend closing this topic with no action against anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Comment: Not something that the admins have to vote on (the one vote here is opposing the move (I mean the action (nobody seems to care anyway))). Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 01:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• No, Bb23 we don't have to....if you feel there is no need and wish to close this thread now, I will not object.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yikes, Worldedixor has been editing since 2006, yet they feel that the OP is somehow helpful, and they think Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk#Voting on the inclusion of the name of Aida's son in the article is reasonable. Andy's initial comment (in full) was: 'See WP:NOTVOTE. Content issues are decided in reference to policy, and after discussion. And no, Wikipedia is not governed by "case law" or precedent.' As normal, let's again thank Andy while asking that he bang his head on the desk rather than publicly flame out. @Worldedixor: Wikipedia is a project to develop an enccyclopedia based on certain standard procedures—please listen to editors like Andy when they explain those procedures, and ignore them when they flame out. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Johnuniq for making an effort to "show non-bias to Andy". I listened carefully to your respectful advice and will assume it was made in good faith, but I will refer you to my original statement. Have a blessed day. Worldedixor (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, close this complaint. And maybe, despite his long tenure at WP, it's time for Worldedixor to get a mentor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• This seems to be one of those cases that requires an admin to either take action or simply close as no action needed. I feel there is enough evidence that Worldedixor has continued disruptive behavior to boomerang for their own disruptive behavior coming off a requested unblock. It might appear to some that the unblock, while seemingly the right move from the fair minded unblock request was, in fact, too soon. Perhaps Liz is correct and a mentorship requirement instead of another block will do.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you for thanking me

I appreciate your feedback. If you appreciate what I said on Andy's talk page, then please try to appreciate what I say on yours. You really ought to read the whole thread carefully and humbly, study this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines, and heed the criticisms of your editing offered. Yeah, Andy was excessively brutal in his criticism. But the substance and the core of his criticism was correct. Please take that to heart, if you hope to be a successful editor here. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't ask me to "have a blessed day". I arrange my own blessings in accordance with my own religious traditions, and have engaged in "at least" four blessings in the last 24 hours. But who is counting? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Cullen³²⁸. I sincerely appreciate your words and respectful approach, but I believe you completely missed all that I stated in my complaint and how a flagrant policy violation was "endearingly" overlooked, the abuse I was subjected to was utterly disregarded, and the abuser was left without any sanctions. Anyone other that that "darling super-editor" would have been sanctioned. Within minutes of my Notice, 4-5 admins/editors came to tell me about how I violated policy (I unintentionally forgot to sign my name), yet not a word to the "darling" for his violent violation of policy. This is called sheer bias and duplicity. If you genuinely cared, please read carefully every word in my "opinion" here on my Talk page and my statement copied below it and how it was handled.

I will no longer edit in such a hostile, insensitive and biased environment. I have a wonderful real life where no one ever treats me as abusively and as violently as the admins' "darling Andy" has treated me.... right here... on Wikiepedia. Worldedixor (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I read and pondered every single word of it. It is always sad when a promising editor persists in disregarding the good faith advice offered by several other experienced editors about their own conduct, and persists in ignoring their own misconduct, while obsessing about the faults and failings of others. This is a path toward departure from productive contribution to the world's leading free information resource. I truly regret that you are trotting down the wrong path. But if you are determined to do so, I hope you will find another place where your contributions will be appreciated. I bid you peace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You obviously are unable to understand what I stated, and chose to "overlook" a flagrant policy violation by my abuser. Thanks anyways. Worldedixor (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: WP:ANI

Sorry for being so harsh on you in my comment on WP:ANI. I was just trying to say that you needed to look closely at AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs)'s edit history—not all of his contribs are vandalism. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 11:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said that all or any of his contributions were vandalism. I did not know till recently that he indeed engaged in vandalism in the past. However, he has a long and embarrassing history of being "enabled" to use his superior policy knowledge to act like an abuser and a troll, with utter disregard to the Principles of Wikipedia.

He is clearly protected, "enabled", even cheered on by admins who say, and I quote, "(Our darling) Andy can be a bit rough sometimes, and sometimes he sounds like a total asshole". Acting like a "total asshole", and worse "enabling" a "total asshole" by admins, is a total embarrassment to Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot talk out of both sides of its mouth. There is no place for a "total asshole" in Wikipedia. In my opinion, he is the equivalent of the "pimpled face" schoolyard bully with ED at a very young age, and he bullies students to compensate for his incompetence.

A troll can be a vandal or, what this "protected" user is, 'a disruptive instigator who sows discord and hinders progress by instigating arguments in a passive-aggressive manner upsetting people, and using his superior policy knowledge as a pretext to deliberately provoke editors into an emotional response'.

At the ANI, my cause of action against him was neither vandalism nor trolling nor edit warring. I gave ONE "strong and convincing evidence" of violent abuse and one nasty personal attack in clear and utter disregard to policy, namely WP:NPA. He was not blocked... he was protected and the rules were bent for him!...

In my opinion, he is an embarrassment and a net liability to Wikipedia. Such duplicity and bias in "selectively" applying policy and "enabling" super-editors that have frequently violated WP:NPA will fire big time on Wikipedia. Worldedixor (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Still, that doesn't call for a permanent block. At the extreme most, an indefinite block would be put in place so that AndyTheGrump at least has a chance of appealing it. But he isn't deserving of a block that extends indefinitely or forever, in my opinion. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 01:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Epicgenius, for "choosing" to discuss this case in a rational and respectful manner on my talk page. I respectfully disagree. Worldedixor (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

I have blocked you for a week for disruptive editing, including harassment and WP:IDHT. Please read WP:GAB if you wish to appeal the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23: You strike me always as being well meaning. I will scrutinize harassment and WP:IDHT. However, I have no doubt that you yourself can see the "double-standard" here. A flagrant disregard to WP:NPA was left unpunished.Worldedixor (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I can vouch for Bbb23's impartiality here - they are acting with the best intentions.

I'd like to touch on a few points, if I may:

• The personal attack on you resulted in a warning for the other party.
• Wikipedia's policies do not encourage punitive blocks, but preventative ones - we block users only if we believe they'll still cause harm.

I do have to admit that posting on Andy's talk page was ill-advised given the recent friction between you both. Branding him a vandal was also uncalled for, though I do appreciate that you owned up to that mistake above. Likewise, I'd advise that you not make a habit of going around telling people that they are 'uninformed' - there's nothing civil about calling someone uneducated, and even if your intentions are good, your actions won't necessarily be interpreted as such.

This all being said; you've been respectful to us up to this point. I take that as a sign of good faith. I know you don't mean harm. But help me help you; I can't do anything if you're actively baiting other users into conflict or accusing them of vandalism without reason.

If you can promise not to interact with Andy - for any reason - and to stop comparing people to deposed Colombian dictators or the mafia - I'd be happy to unblock you. Just say so below. Best, m.o.p 00:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

M.O.P., you also strike me as one of the most "unbiased" and well-meaning administrators that are "likable" and command respect, and that I genuinely respect. I am a very respectful person but do not appreciate injustice and do not believe that there is a place for little hard-ons or violence of any kind in a civilized society (verbal or otherwise). I also believe in "Use words that help not words that hurt".

I think both AndyTheGrump and I were expressly warned not to edit each other's edits and to avoid each other completely. Ergo, I hereby promise to "mutually" not interact with Andy - for any reason - and to stop comparing people to Colombian drug lords or the mafia, so you can unblock me. Thanks.

This unfortunately will prevent me from straightening out his edit on South Sudan. South Sudan does indeed have a Christian majority (the MAIN reason why they split from predominantly Moslem Sudan) and the second Arab country (I should add potentially since it has been guaranteed full membership in the Arab League -- Thanks AndyTheGrump!), other than Lebanon, to have a Christian president.

I provided two reliable sources from very reputable sources, one of them is Al Sharq Al Awsat, one of the leading newspapers in the Arab world. Both duly asserted that South Sudan has a Christian majority.

So, please, if you want, feel free to invite another "informed" editor, preferably one who has studied Arabic extremely well, to straighten out the "factual" content that AndyTheGrump has removed. The removed content does not need numbers or statistics. It simply says South Sudan has a Christian majority.

Thank you and thank the other "unbiased" and well-meaning admins who can see that there is a double standard and know that there are more informed and highly useful people in the world than just one. Worldedixor (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

One observation, with all due respect. I clearly asserted that I will not edit South Sudan and left it up to another editor who clearly understands Arabic to address the factual content removed, and will "mutually" avoid interacting directly with AndyTheGrump all together. What I would like to note is that AndyTheGrump "appears" to want to "control the actions of others from afar" after what you and I discussed "privately" on MY talk page noting that you have not expressed your wish to act or not to act (which is your prerogative) in this private 1 one 1 discussion that is on MY talk page. I don't how to define this. I state this observation for the record. Worldedixor (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I just want to add a "helpful" note. I will provide a verifiable and very highly reliable source that shows that the statement "now the population of South Sudan is overwhelmingly Christian" should not have been removed but rather an assumption of good faith should have been exercised and a simple "citation needed" would have been more appropriate, and perhaps remove the "it was estimated" part which would have been a personal choice, and I typically try to respect the original choice of the other editor. To clarify, the "factual content" removed was NOT originally added by me.

This is directly from the Washington Post, IN ENGLISH (no need for Arabic): "In 2011, South Sudan, a mostly Christian region, split from the predominantly Muslim and Arab north, in a process strongly supported by the international community and churches in the West." at [14] Had it been predominantly Moslem, believe me the churches in the west would not have touched it with a 10 foot pole. A side note that this is common knowledge for those of us involved in world affairs, and the Washington Post would NOT have printed such a statement if they had ANY doubt that it was inaccurate. Worldedixor (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

One more note "unrelated" to THIS particular "factual content". I went further to satisfy my analytical mind as a well-meaning editor. The total population of South Sudan has already been established to be 8-10 million approximately (I added 10, thanks to my stalker -- still whether it is 60% or 80%, it does not make any difference). This reliable source (used one or more times in Wikipedia) asserts that the Christian population in South Sudan is 6 million approximately.[15]. I trust that this will show 1. my analytical and good research capabilities and will also show 2. that a simple "citations needed" made in good faith would have been more appropriate when someone is uninformed. By the way, what I meant by uninformed (def: not having or showing awareness or understanding of the facts) was not that the other party is uneducated or unlearned. This has never been my perception. It simply means "uninformed about this issue" and world affairs and obviously no one knows everything. I, for example, know nothing about Samawah other than that I heard the name.Worldedixor (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the promise. I believe you, but I'd like to cover a few things in light of your above statements.

Content disputes aside - and, at its simplest, that is what this is - please do your best to assume good faith. I understand that your opinion of Andy may not be the highest, but you have to put that aside and focus on content only. Referring to him as a 'stalker' (I understand you may mean this in the on-wiki sense, but it still carries a negative connotation) or implying that he's attempting to manipulate the situation does not help the situation in the least. Note that this is not a defense of anyone. I do not take sides. I'm simply trying to ensure that we're focusing on the content - speculation as to what other people intend to do through their actions will get you nowhere.

Again, with emphasis; even if you do not mean harm with what you say, remember that other people do not have a window to your mind. If it's even possible that somebody could take your statements the wrong way, they're better left unsaid. Let me know if any of this is unclear.

Per Andy's latest edits to my talk page; I believe he's concerned with the conflicting RS reports on Sudan's most-practiced religion. If unblocked, would you agree to avoid editing that page without 1) first gaining consensus on the talk page and 2) consulting with myself or another uninvolved administrator?

And - this should go without saying - if you are unblocked, please note that you'll be treading on thin ice. If you provoke another editor or perform a questionable action that appears to be in bad faith, there will be consequences. Mediation like this consumes quite a bit of my time, so I'd appreciate if it wasn't in vain. Is that fair? m.o.p 07:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks m.o.p. You and the few other unbiased and well-meaning admins have somewhat restored my faith in Wikipedia even though I still see the double standard. But it is time to move on. I also sense your collective frustrations with the status quo, and I hope things do get better. I believe I made a difference and raised awareness that we all should adhere to WP Principles without favoritism.

In accordance with what AndyTheGrump and I were asked, I will not edit this article and agree to "mutually" avoid each other completely and "mutually" avoid editing each other's edits all together, and I will forget about what he said to me and how he treated me, and move on.

For some reason, I know that, if you or probably 99.99% of the other editors disagreed with any of my edits, we will be able to debate each other in a pleasant, harmonious and cooperative manner. So, I am looking forward to "civil and pleasant" agreements and disagreements in a respectful, non-condescending and constructive manner con "calor humano" and I get treated like an intelligent human being.

As I said, I will NOT edit South Sudan. I offered competent help in good faith in favor of re-inclusion and it's no longer my problem. Also, I will not follow the afd at [16]. Please feel free to follow it yourself based on consensus. I believe the afd is ready to close but it is your call.

I would ask if you can ask a super nice admin besides yourself to help me if I ever need guidance that I will keep to a minimum.

Thanks, again! Worldedixor (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable. I've unblocked you under the assumption that we can move forward. If you ever need help, or if you feel you're being slighted by another editor, please do not hesitate to contact me. I repeat - do not respond to people if they antagonize you. While taking matters into your own hands may seem like an attractive option at the time, it may also lead to more blocks/generally unpleasant situations. Thanks again, m.o.p 08:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better. It is not easy being a "good", fair and just admin, but I believe that you, of all admins, can make a difference with other unbiased and well-meaning admins, and Wikipedia can only benefit of such change. Thanks again. Worldedixor (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your kind words are appreciated. I've got to catch up on some rest; drop me a message on my talk page if you feel the need to. Regards, m.o.p 09:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up, rather than copy/paste the entire ANI discussion (which a] violates our copyright and attribution requirements, and b] would be inadmissible as evidence because of a] ), you'd be better off taking a WP:DIFF from ANI right now while the discussion is still there. Your link to that diff is permanently accessible as the history of the edits are permanent. Also, doing so stops making it look like you had an ANI discussion on your user talkpage :-) ES&L 16:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing me with the best help you can give me. Worldedixor (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Griselda Blanco

Now that you've been unblocked, you need to spend a little time learning policies and guidelines at Wikipedia if you want to edit here successfully. I've taken the trouble to look at this series of edits you made to the Blanco article, and here are some points:

1. It's almost always wrong to use hyperbole in the lead of an article, even if there's some support for it scattered throughout the body of the article. Thus your addition of "powerful, violent and cruel" before drug lord should not have been made.
2. You added "She was known as the first Colombian drug lord to export cocaine to the United States, and the person who taught the minions of the seventies, after killing several rivals, even one of her own husband at short range." without any source.
3. You are adding bare URLs inside the article. At a minimum, they should be put in referenced footnotes. You do this consistently. Please read WP:REF.
4. You added a link to a picture right after "where a photo was taken of her." The source for the picture is unreliable, and the picture has zero context that it's even her or that it was the picture at issue.
5. You changed the language at the beginning of the death section. The details you added were unnecessary. It was well-worded before your edit.
6. You added: "According to a witness interviewed by The Miami Herald, the killer was a man in his 40s or 50s who was calm and composed throughout the attack. She was transported by la Unidad Intermedia de Belén where minutes later he lost his life." I see no support for that assertion at all.

I'm not going to revert your changes. Instead, I'd like to see you clean it up and then let me know when you've done that. Think of this as mini-mentoring. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23. I will respond line by line for your easy reference. 1. Please feel free to make the changes in your first point, I would genuinely appreciate it. Also, please free to write the article. I am fine with that.

2. I did use reliable sources. I invite you to read and listen to them.

3. Is it OK to build the article and then do the cosmetics? It takes a lot of mental focus to add reliable content in good faith. The bare link is less distracting than ref for me, and it helps stay focused.

4. Not sure how to deal with the picture. But that picture sure appears like Griselda. She was very well known.

5. I respectfully disagree. My edit is more detailed and sourced.

6. I provided reliable sources. I invite you to read and listen to them.

7. No, no more questions... I feel I adequately addressed your message. Thank you for your concern.

Worldedixor (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Let's put aside some of our areas of disagreement for the moment. I want you to edit the article and make the changes that either you agree are necessary or conform to Wikipedia guidelines (references, for example). It's not fair of you to expect others to clean up after you, and you need to learn how to do this properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome Bbb23. Will do. With all due respect, I believe that comments like "It's not fair of you to expect others to clean up after you" are unnecessary. Worldedixor (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the ref tags. Minor points. References go outside punctuation marks, and there should be no spaces between the punctuation marks and the references and no spaces between multiple references. Now let's go back to the remaining content issues:

• Point #4. The website you cite is not a reliable source. It's some sort of website about paranormal activity. You can't use it for that reason alone. The fact that you think the picture looks like Blanco is WP:OR, but even if you're right, as I said earlier, there's nothing to connect the picture to what the material in our article says. I don't see any gray area here. It has to be removed.
• Point #5. I don't want to argue over how much detail is too much detail. So, let's assume your added detail adds value. What you should then do is merge your revised sentence with the succeeding sentence about the drive-by shooting. Otherwise, it's weirdly redundant.
• Point #6. Please identify the source that supports the material you added.

Thanks for indenting here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Point #4. I can assume good faith and will concede and remove the picture reference.

Point #5. I respectfully disagree with you, and I feel that the paragraph "as is" is good, but I value your respectful disagreement.

Point #6. I have identified several sources that support the material I added.

J'suis sûr q tu causes bien le Français... ¿pero como está tu Español?

Worldedixor (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My French is much better than my Spanish. Please just give me a link to the source, whatever language it's in.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand "one link to the source". It is all there properly referenced in the article. In an efforet to be helpful and patient with you, and if you mean the details I added to her death paragraph, here is the very highly reliable sources I duly included in the article as a reference [17][18]. If you need help understanding Spanish, please let me know as Google Translate is not always accurate, and I will help you understand in good faith.Worldedixor (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I translated the article, and nothing came close to supporting that particular material. I didn't listen to the YouTube, but you put it earlier in the paragraph, not after the material at issue. Does it support that material? Oh, lest I forget, going back to Point #2 above, there are no citations after that material. What supports it? In general, it should be clear from the citations what supports what.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to assume bad faith nor abuse of admin powers here, but, with all due respect, your statement "I translated the article, and nothing came close to supporting that particular material" is INACCURATE. You obviously do NOT have sufficient knowledge about the subject nor do you have command of the Spanish language. With all due respect, it is my opinion that an editor should only edit an article when they have sufficient knowledge of the subject of the article. Would you be editing an article about Assi El Helani when you do not have sufficient knowledge about him if it weren't ME who was editing it? I invite you to be helpful to me and recognize your limitations. Putting this aside, le me ask you a policy question. If one source is a reference for 40 statements in 10 paragraphs in the same article, is it WP policy to add it 40 times or more after each sentence, or is my understanding correct that once the reference is included in an article, it can serve as a reference for the entire article, and those interested editors who have sufficient knowledge about the subject and can understand the language of the subject of the article can easily verify it? If policy allows this, please copy and paste the "exact provision" and state the WP policy. I am trying to remain respectful and patient with you, and it is my opinion, and how I feel, that I am being singled out, for obvious reasons, by an admin acting as an editor editing an article of which he has no sufficient knowledge and his command of the Spanish language is equally insufficient. Worldedixor (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to help you and went to a lot of trouble to do so. Not that I think what you've done post-unblock warrants reblocking, but, based on your attitude, I fear you won't last long at Wikipedia. Perhaps @Master of Puppets: or someone else can help you. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do have to say that I'm not quite impressed; @Bbb23: has been trying to help you learn how to edit Wikipedia without conflicting with others. Given the amount of friction he's getting in response, it isn't exactly a rosy picture.

Please note that Bbb23 has not done a single thing in his admin capacity here, so saying that there's admin abuse here is quite offensive. This is an editor attempting to mentor another editor - don't paint it as a power trip in disguise.

It's also rather insulting that you're critiquing Bbb23's grasp of languages or his knowledge, and the idea that everybody who edits Wikipedia should be an expert in their field is bizarre. If that's how we worked, we would be Encyclopedia Brittanica - rather, we rely on reliable sourcing and unbiased writing. If Bbb23 - who I know to be an intelligent individual - doesn't reach the same conclusion after reading your source as you do, how can we assume that other readers of that article won't misinterpret it either? Hopefully you understand why Bbb23's concerned about the source. Nobody questions your no-doubt impeccable knowledge of Assi El Helani, but we need to use sources that require very minimal, if any, interpretation.

It would be appreciated if you take some time in writing your reply, and ensure that you apologize to Bbb23 for your abrasiveness. After all, when somebody helps you out of good will, you do not throw it back in their face. There are other issues to cover, but I'd like to get these out of the way first. m.o.p 16:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)