User talk:DesertInfo

Welcome!

Hello, DesertInfo!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Find a task to help improve Wikipedia.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first — it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Fraternities and sororities

Hi Desert ambition! I just wanted to follow up from Discord about fraternities and sororities. I'm not sure what type of editors tend to hang out at WP:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities, but it at least seems like an active project. My main suggestion for preventing IPs/new editors from getting away with deleting negative content is to make sure there's always a source (or, better, two) backing it up, since I'm pretty sure edits that remove references are more likely to trigger User:ClueBot NG or catch the attention of users monitoring for vandalism. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, there are some existing pages like Racism in United States college fraternities and sororities that could definitely use a bunch of cleanup. I'd start first with the main Fraternities and sororities page, though, as that has a lot more views and will thus be a better use of editing efforts. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Misuse of minor edits checkbox

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Pretoria, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of renamed places in South Africa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Queenstown and Maclear. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Change South African city names

Hello,

I think you need to go one city at a time for name changes. For example, for Talk:Cala, Eastern Cape please start another RM showing examples of media using the name "Kala" as opposed to "Cala".VR _talk 00:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• I understand where you're coming VR, from but there are going to be very few sources specifically talking about a town of 10,000 people almost entirely composed of black Africans. The best sources are going to be government reports on the name change and media reports that the name was changed. Both have already been dismissed so I do not know what sources should be submitted. Desertambition (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Where were government and media reports dismissed? Can you give me links? VR _talk 00:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    • VR

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Port_Elizabeth#Requested_move_30_September_2021

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:King_William%27s_Town#Requested_move_27_November_2021

• VR I know you're already thinking that it's not the article on Kala but the same users show up in almost every thread on renamed South African places. I understand that I can submit another move request for every city but the fact is I have no reason to believe this wouldn't devolve into the exact same arguments that have happened on every renamed South African city. Seems much more reasonable to have a discussion in order to understand the policies and guidelines behind these moves so that they can be applied across the board. I am not completely opposed to making it but I hope you'll understand that I would like the discussion to run a bit longer before I go through that. Very tedious, time consuming, and discouraging. Desertambition (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• In this above links, who is arguing against the reliability of your sources? I see only Park3r, so I don't think reliability was an issue. In fact one person (BilledMammal) specifically said that reliability of sources shouldn't be considered.VR _talk 00:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• VR I don't fully understand your argument. Reliability should matter. The sources I provided are reliable. Both Park3r and BilledMammal are wrong. Park3r doesn't believe African sources are reliable and BilledMammal refuses to accept the sources because they aren't from outside of South Africa I believe. But his reasoning is a bit obtuse and hard to understand. If you can explain their reasoning I would greatly appreciate it. Both of these arguments are deeply flawed. South African and international media have reported on this. All reliable sources. The same argument would be brought up again in another RM just like they have for over a decade. Desertambition (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Hello Desertambition! Your additions to User:Desertambition have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. An additional note: I've left the link to the article behind since I got the feeling that you want people to read the original article. While keeping the link on Wikipedia is allowed, I unfortunately have to remove the copied article text since it's not under a free license. Feel free to point others to the article in whichever way you see fit. Thank you. Chlod (say hi!) 02:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Please do not ever edit my user page again. Desertambition (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Desertambition: can I kindly suggest you not say things like these. Chlod is right. When people give you feedback, please accept it.

I understand you're upset about wikipedia using apartheid names. I get it. Apartheid was such a sick and disgusting crime. Also shocking was how the rest of the world didn't do enough to help the oppressed people of South Africa. I'm with you on all that.

But, my friend, you have to be polite on wikipedia and follow the rules. Be patient, and sooner or later you will find people start to agree with what you're saying.VR _talk 03:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

• Hi, Desert -- I apologize for editing your userpage. But in reference to your statement on neutrality there, I would like your opinion, please: Should Wikipedia be neutral when governments commit, condone or sanction atrocities? - JGabbard (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • To editor JGabbard: What do you mean by that question? I believe if an atrocity has been committed that should be recorded. If that atrocity is condoned and is important enough, then those comments should be included as well. Does that answer your question? Desertambition (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Move warring

Hi Desertambition,

Please revert your recent repeated moves to eNtokozweni (ngrams), Emgwenya (ngrams), Mbhongo (ngrams), Ncorha (ngrams), Khubusi River (ngrams), and eMkhondo (Google news eMkhondo and Piet Retief - ngrams is not suitable as Piet Retief is not primary).

Per WP:RMUM, move warring is disruptive, and if a bold move is contested you are required to open an RM about the move rather than reimplementing the move yourself. I understand you have strong feelings about this, but if once you have reverted and looked at the evidence I have provided you still feel that a move is required, the correct response is to open an RM, rather than engaging in disruptive behaviour.

I would note that you are also engaging in move warring at Ntabankulu, but on further review I find that Ntabankulu has become the common name, and so I won't request that you self-revert, but I do note it in the context of the broader behaviour (ngrams)

BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

In addition, I will ask that you self-revert your bold moves to Mhlambanyatsi, Mpumalanga (Google news Mhlambanyatsi (with most results being about a location in Swaziland) and Buffelspruit), Mmaduma (Google news Greenside and Mmaduma), Dikeni (Google news Alice and Dikeni), James Calata, Eastern Cape (Google news Jamestown and James Calata), and Maletswai (ngrams).

While these are not repeated moves, I am starting to feel that these large numbers of bold moves, that are both clearly controversial and probably not aligned with policy based on the evidence I have found, are themselves amounting to disruptive behaviour, and so I would ask that you revert them and open RM's. I will hold off on doing so myself, as this issue has expanded past what can be managed simply by reverting bold moves. I also note that the titles you have chosen are not aligned with disambiguation policy for South African locations, and while I understand that you disagree with that policy, it is disruptive to ignore it in bold moves as you are doing. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Despite your repeated claims that these moves are controversial, you have yet to provide any proof of that. I will not move the pages back and I encourage you to present your arguments, address my sources directly, and try again. You cannot keep citing ngrams after you have been told repeatedly they are not reliable. You also cite google search results, which is not a valid citation. There is no reason to entertain weaker sources when stronger sources exist. If there is overwhelming evidence the name has been rejected, then fine. However, that evidence doesn't exist as far as I can tell. Try using reliable sources next time. Desertambition (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Ngrams is considered reliable and appropriate evidence; see WP:RSPM which states use evidence (such as Google Ngrams ...). WP:RSPM also supports the use of appropriate search engine tests, as it states in the RM template If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results, emphasis mine. In general, I would also note that such tests tend to be more effective than providing sources directly, as the provide a more neutral method of choosing sources, rather than risk editors inadvertently choosing sources that support their position and overlooking those sources that oppose it.

I would also note that WP:RM#CM states that A move is potentially controversial if ... someone could reasonably disagree with the move. It is possible that you could argue that I - and the other editors who disagree with your moves when they are opened for RM's - are being unreasonable, but I don't believe that is the case.

Unfortunately, I cannot see how we can move forward from here, and so I see no choice but to write up a review at WP:ANI. I will provide you the appropriate notification when it is submitted. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I will make my views clear on the noticeboard. I have brought this issue up before. Desertambition (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flag of Arkansas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Confederacy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Florida

Thanks for your interest in the Flag of Florida. I rolled back your changes because they didn't seem neutral. The Washington Post article didn't really add anything that wasn't covered already, but if you do find some more original sources feel free to add them. A few months ago pulled newspaper archives for when the flag was changed and there wasn't anything in there to tie the change to the Confederacy. That doesn't mean that wasn't the reason, but I haven't been able to find anything to say for sure. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for your interest as well Nemov. I'm going to put the paragraph back because I provided three sources. The Washington Post article was not dead as you claimed in your edit summary. I'll add a note that it's not officially confederate but the evidence is quite strong and it is widely believed to be based on the confederate flag. I encourage you to read up on Lost Cause mythology and how many Southern states tried to downplay slavery and embrace confederate imagery. Desertambition (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You haven't addressed anything I asked and just reverted my change without any consensus to do so. That is not in good faith and your suggestion that I read up on the Lost Cause is presumptuous. The Washington Post "article links to a dead article." That's what I said. You didn't read what I wrote. The Post article doesn't go in depth and links to a dead article. That's what you've added. Now you've added a Denver Post summary that doesn't include any research. If you have some original research to add, please feel free. I would love to see it. As it stands you're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm going to revert again and please this time find some consensus in talk. Nemov (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbnck (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: The section of the Barbados page provides fully cited references showcasing a mixture of support for, and oppositon to, republicanism. Editing articles on Wikipedia to reflect your opinion is not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbnck (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Bbnck This was highly inappropriate. You should not leave messages like this. It is not my opinion, it is the general consensus and people have brought this up to you before. It is not ok to threaten bans. Desertambition (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not correct. There is only one other talk page where I have been compelled to publish this tag for the same reason I have been compelled to do so herein. It is normal practice on Wikipedia to warn persons using standardised Wikipedia tags. Please familiarize yourself by reading this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbnck (talk • contribs) 04:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Ymblanter I've been editing for years. I feel so defeated. I spent so many hours arguing this and wasn't taken seriously. I do need to take a break but this is seriously intense measures. I was not told I would be blocked for responding and no explanation was given. I engaged with good faith. Seriously upset about this. Feels extremely unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertambition (talk • contribs) 11:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You can post an unblock request as explained in the template above.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Please Desert, please listen. I trust Ymblanter as he is an awesome editor and administrator, so please listen carefully to his words, both here and at the noticeboard. Being blocked is not the end of the world, so lean back and take a break. At this point I would suggest that you only answer questions when asked. And when you think you are ready, do use the Unblock template to request the ability to edit again. Again, please listen and learn, so you can come back and help us build and improve this encyclopedia. You are an avidly responsive editor who has shown an ability to learn the policies and guidelines so please don't lose heart, and I hope to see you back to editing soon! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 20:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend to follow this discussion for a while, I expect that most of the opinions will be given in a couple of days. It is not pleasant, I know, but at least it will give some reasonable picture of what (mostly) uninvolved users think and what they expect. Then, indeed, an unblock request should correspond to these expectations.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that. And we hope the New Year will bring excellent editing and happiness to us all! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 20:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Working on Comprehensive List

@Ymblanter:

You didn't read my conversation with Nick-D. I am working on exactly what you are asking for. Why ask for something and then take away my ability to post it? I am working on it right now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick-D#Working_on_Comprehensive_Review_of_Suspected_South_African_White_Nationalists/Sympathizers

How is it fair to block me and then ignore my questions? Desertambition (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I was not being racist

I was writing my response as I got blocked so that's why you didn't get a response right away. DeCausa Jeppiz

I should have put Afrikaner white nationalist but my main point was illustrating the messaging of white nationalists in South Africa. I have never implied that all Afrikaners are racist because of course they aren't. What I am saying is that there is a significant white nationalist movement in South Africa at the moment that frames the history of South Africa as Afrikaners fighting for their rights against the incompetent/violent South African government/population. That is supported in the news reports I linked. Did you have a chance to watch any of those videos? Desertambition (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

How to raise issues of bias

Some advice on raising issues of bias:

• Administrators have no power over content, only to implement some technical actions and assess the outcome of discussions, where all volunteers should be treated equally and judged only on the strength of their argument.
• The more heated and emotional your comments, the less seriously you will be taken, rightly or wrongly.
• To contest article content as biased, it is not enough to say "this is a topic of interest to white nationalism" (for instance, our article on Holocaust denial is not an endorsement of Holocaust denial—it's the furthest thing from it) and it is not enough to say "it is biased". You need to give specific suggestions of what changes should be made and why, with reference to reliable sources. For instance, you might say: "the article makes no mention of this common criticism of Orania, found in Peer-Reviewed Journal Monthly and Newspaper of Record Daily". Or you might say: "the source cited here is a think-tank with political biases, but the article text presents the information as correct rather than attributing it to the think-tank".
• If you want to make the claim that white nationalists control the content of Wikipedia articles, don't. It's too broad and vague. Instead, as the edit history of all Wikipedia articles is public, you can find exactly who wrote what, see whether all of their edits have been biased or factually incorrect, and if so you can raise that specific allegation at a content forum (like WP:ANI, similar to the venue WP:AN that you posted at). Better yet is to try to discuss with the editor specifically what you see as a problem with their edits, and if they respond well you might find an amicable resolution, and if they don't then that's more evidence for your case.

— Bilorv (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope you (Desertambition) are able to get back to editing in a more positive way than before. I think you have a lot to contribute to the encyclopedia, and Bilorv gives some great tips on how to challenge systemic bias in a constructive way. (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked due to disruptive editing and I now have a much stronger grasp of Wikipedia's guidelines. I apologize for my lack of patience and calm. These guidelines were not 100% clear to me beforehand. I hope it is at least partially understandable why I was so confused. It often felt like I was being given conflicting guidance. However, that does not excuse my immaturity and lack of patience. I am working on a much more comprehensive review related to the problems I laid out previously. My arguments are often overly emotional and I recognize that. I intend to further develop a more neutral writing style.

{{{1}}}

I have never intended to cause harmful disruption and I do take issue with the accusation that I am WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. believe that I can contribute a lot to this encyclopedia. I attended the [South Africa meetup] and had a very reasonable and polite discussion on the topic of South African place names. I hope to attend the meeting at the end of the month as well. I hope it is clear that I am here to build an encyclopedia.

This post is intended to serve as a genuine apology and explanation for why this won't happen again. I fully understand that it was my disruptive editing style that largely contributed to my ban. I maintain that I have not baselessly accused users of being neo-nazis but that my concerns about WP:BIAS and WP:NONAZIS can be handled much more maturely, politely, and calmly. Desertambition (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See discussion below. I am giving you what we call a WP:ROPE unblock. It does not absolve you of fault, but does provide a second chance. Use it wisely; if you are blocked again you are unlikely to be unblocked. Don't be afraid to ask for guidance at my talk page or at the Teahouse, which will probably be better staffed than my talk. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding pings so that administrators are aware of this post. @Ymblanter:, @Bilorv:, @Buidhe:, @Vice regent:, and @Paine Ellsworth:. Don't know if I forgot anybody. Desertambition (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Improved my block appeal with strikethrough so changes are transparent. I believe this appeal is significantly improved from the last one. I hope this makes it clear that I understand what I have to do and just stop arguing. I'm not going to keep bringing it up. I apologize. @Ymblanter: Desertambition (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to review an appeal on my own block. Some other administrator will do this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging the first two administrators on Recently Active Admins for my block to be reviewed. Apologies if this is inappropriate.

@BD2412: @Liz: Desertambition (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@After Midnight: @Keith D: I messed up my pings before and I just realized that. After reading WP:PINGFIX, I am doing the same thing as before and pinging the two most recently active admins on Recently Active Admins for my block to be reviewed. Desertambition (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: @Orangemike: This time I made sure to specifically ping admins who have references to handling requests/offering help on their user page. Also found on the list of Recently Active Admins. I think I might be messing up the pings. Desertambition (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop pinging people to look at your unblock appeal. It is inappropriate. Because of the rules, it may discourage admins from looking at your case.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not WP:CANVASSING, there is no bias in who I am pinging, I am just trying to communicate that I would like this appeal to be reviewed. Please do not throw around accusations like that when I am not breaking any guidelines. The end of the month meeting is coming up and I would rather not attend that meeting as a blocked user.

@Ymblanter: Could you please ask another admin to review my unblock request? Desertambition (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews: @Deb: Pinging the first two admins on Recently Active Admins so that they can hopefully review my unblock request. If this is incorrect please tell me that. I find the lack of communication confusing and I am unsure if this appeal is still being considered. I do not believe it would be harmful to allow me to edit again. Desertambition (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Desertambition also has a habit of responding badly when people post warning messages on his/her talk page.^{02:32, 31 December 2021,04:42, 8 January 2022} When a user make mistakes such as posting copyright material or edit warring, they need to be warned. Desertambition should remain blocked until he/she accepts that it is OK for other users to post warning messages on his/her talk page such as the ones on Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  That is unnecessary in my opinion. I have not posted copyright material since that long excerpt was removed from my page. In the second link, it was inappropriate to threaten a ban. Nothing rude about what I wrote. I feel like I am being unfairly put under a microscope for relatively minor infractions here. I'm sure we can nitpick over my profile all day, small interactions that have not repeated do not need to be addressed in a post that is unrelated to that. I have already addressed my past immaturity, lack of patience, and emotional responses. Desertambition (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  You do not listen (in this as in other interactions with other editors). You focus on the examples and not on the principles.

  Do you accept that it is OK for other editors to place standard warning messages (possibly with explanatory comments) on your talk page?-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• My limited interaction with this user wasn't positive either. I admire the passion, but there seems to be an element of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that is preventing working in good faith. When I attempted to steer user towards consensus about Flag of Florida my guidance was ignored, edits reverted, and user told me to educate myself about the Lost Cause. It appears this is a pattern of behavior. Nemov (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• To clarify to Desertambition: I am not an administrator, just an editor. This unblock request violates WP:NOTTHEM to an extent where I would recommend that an admin decline it. It contains some good progress towards what we need to hear for an unblock, but does not convince me that the behaviour (or similar) will not re-occur. — Bilorv (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry for pinging you Bilorv, I should have looked more closely at the profiles. I was worried about that so I would welcome any feedback. Will try to revise the post. I am saying that I will refrain from performing as many WP:BOLD edits, go to the talk page for controversial topics, and provide detailed edit summaries when I am alleging WP:BIAS from occurring. I fully apologize for my disruptive editing and for not just letting this post stand for itself. I swear to not "labeling opponents as neo-Nazis without evidence" in the future at any point. I intend to back up any allegations with edit histories and discuss issues on the talk page while assuming good faith before I put in any kind of complaint. I was too quick to jump the gun before. Desertambition (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Just want you to know that I support your unblock and your return to editing. You appear to have met the qualifications to return. When you are unblocked, please remember the Five Pillars and that your future edits will be closely monitored. It will be like an unofficial probationary period with no specified length of time. As long as you do your best, I think you'll be okay. Thank you for helping us build Wikipedia! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Desertambition, you still seem to be rather impatient. I can understand why you want your appeal reviewed, but don't expect an instant response. Deb (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Deb I apologize for that lack of patience. I feel that it will hurt my credibility if I am a blocked user in a Wikipedia meeting. I did not know how long I should wait before pinging someone if I wanted to do this before the meeting comes around. I hope it is clear that I am eager to begin editing again, not trying to harass administrators. Desertambition (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Users with clearly problematic/racist/racially biased posting

Nope. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am posting a part of everything I have been researching to challenge the accusation that I am labeling opponents as neo-Nazis without evidence. Along with multiple accusations that I am an "anti-white" racist. This should serve as proof that I made up nothing and that merely discussing a problem does not mean I am accusing anyone and everyone of being racist. I am posting this here because I am unable to post it anywhere else. I will ping the original admin who blocked me as well as the first three admins on Recently Active Admins. Hope I am doing this correctly. Please tell me if I am doing this incorrectly. @Ymblanter: @Explicit: @Bkell: @Justlettersandnumbers: VonHallerbot VonHallerbot This user is clearly a neo-nazi/WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. All four edits have been related to neo-nazi adjacent topics. Edit 1: Erased large portions of the Lyudmila Pavlichenko article. She was a soviet sniper during World War 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyudmila_Pavlichenko&diff=prev&oldid=1055255645 Edit 2: Added kill record info to the Ernst Kals article, a Nazi solider without reasoning. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernst_Kals&diff=prev&oldid=1056072835 Edit 3: Added kill record info to Jürgen von Rosenstiel, a nazi solider without reasoning. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C3%BCrgen_von_Rosenstiel&diff=prev&oldid=1056072954 Edit 4: Reverted my edit to Orania, Northern Cape that added information about the town being largely considered white supremacist and racist without reasoning. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orania,_Northern_Cape&diff=1063783394&oldid=1063639818 Estagal Estagal Also a user I suspect of being racist/WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Edit 1: Changed "George Floyd Protests" to "George Floyd Riots" without reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Floyd_protests&diff=prev&oldid=959855991 Edit 2: Randomly changed numbers multiple times without explanation on the Coronavirus, and List of epidemics articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus&diff=prev&oldid=942215775 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus&diff=prev&oldid=942387396 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus&diff=prev&oldid=943126032 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus&diff=prev&oldid=943128248 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_epidemics&diff=prev&oldid=942215719 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus&diff=prev&oldid=942069769 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus&diff=prev&oldid=941608118 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus&diff=prev&oldid=941428487 Edit 3: Reverted my edits on Orania, Northern Cape that said black people living nearby feared violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orania,_Northern_Cape&diff=1063783878&oldid=1063783394 The C of E The C of E This user is already topic banned from DYK for constantly proposing racist/sexist content. There was already a finding of racist posting but administrators did not believe that was block or ban worthy for reasons I fail to comprehend. I was under the impression Wikipedia had a "no tolerance" policy with WP:NORACISTS. Either they're a bigot or a troll but either way it doesn't seem like they should be editing Wikipedia. Edit 1: Racist DYK nomination about the South "rising again". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/From_Dixie_With_Love Edit 2: "that in New Zealand: Niggerhead, Nigger Hill and Nigger Stream were all renamed in 2016 for causing offence?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Tawhai_Hill,_K%C4%81nuka_Hills,_P%C5%ABkio_Stream Edit 3: "that the Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture (pictured) is nicknamed "The Queer with the Leer" and "The Fag on the Crag"?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Oscar_Wilde_Memorial_Sculpture Edit 4: The user using my block to dismiss my previous move requests https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King_William%27s_Town&diff=1064447626&oldid=1064158732 Johnmars3 Johnmars3 This user clearly has an agenda to push and it seems to be one of white nationalism. Edited the page about Orania, Northern Cape and provided questionable reasons for doing so. They have also focused on topics that are strongly related to white nationalism. Edit 1: "Afrikaners aren't white" is a South African white nationalist talking point and myth. Even ignoring the reasoning behind the talking point, it goes against what the credible sources say about the town. Reverted my edits. 'An indictment of South Africa': whites-only town Orania is booming - The Guardian https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orania,_Northern_Cape&diff=prev&oldid=1066228341 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orania,_Northern_Cape&diff=prev&oldid=1066228515 Edit 2: Strange focus on South African crime that reeks of POV pushing. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_South_African_unrest&diff=prev&oldid=1033823180 I am a South African that has been robbed/burgled/mugged/assaulted/hijacked 14 times in the past 5 years. I do not think my focus on crime is "strange". Johnmars3 Edit 3: Anti-ANC agenda seems pretty clear and violates WP:NPOV. "Factors like ANC mismanagement, corruption, cadre deployment and state capture " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_South_African_unrest&diff=prev&oldid=1034837954 Edit 4: More crime POV pushing to make whites-only Orania sound safe compared to majority black South Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orania,_Northern_Cape&diff=prev&oldid=985463111 Since 1994, more than 600,000 people have been murdered in South Africa. Do you know how many people have been murdered in Orania over the same period? Zero people. Johnmars3 Park3r Park3r Clearly holds racist beliefs and shouldn't be editing racially sensitive topics. Edit 1: White nationalist myth/talking point that South Africa is an undemocratic anarchic state because the people can't govern themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Park3r&diff=1057995433&oldid=1057994365 Edit 2: Calls South African media "juniorised" despite widespread understanding that South Africa has reliable media sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Port_Elizabeth&diff=prev&oldid=1049691993 Edit 3: Has opposed moving many renamed places in South Africa for years. If it was one time I would be less suspicious but it seems strange that these names have continued to see use in reliable sources over the years and seem to be opposed by a person who believes the sources are "juniorised" and that South Africa is "increasingly anarchic". This user seemingly changed their views over time to be more against these name changes as they have supported some in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bela-Bela&diff=prev&oldid=1010413609 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Makhanda,_Eastern_Cape&diff=prev&oldid=1009944720 Desertambition (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC) @Estagal, The C of E, Johnmars3, and Park3r: While this is probably an inappropriate discussion for a banned editor to be starting or engaged in, as the user has pinged this for admin attention I believe the discussed editors should be notified. BilledMammal (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• I hatted the section above because it was unambiguously not an appropriate use of your talk page while blocked. If and when you are unblocked, you can participate in broader conduct discussions again; unless and until that happens, the only conduct you should be discussing here is your own. If you continue, your talk page access may be revoked. On a similar note, please stop pinging administrators here to expedite a block review; you are among quite a few others who have appealed their blocks, and these appeals are reviewed as patrolling administrators find time and energy. The best thing you can do to speed up the process is to write an unblock request that is short, to the point, and fully addresses the issues that led to your block and how you would prevent them from recurring in the future. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Blablubbs I'm not being obtuse to be obtuse but it is directly related to why I was blocked and I do not see how it is not. The person who blocked me asked for me to provide this information. I have been trying to provide it for weeks. I do not see how I would be disruptive and I have already posted an apology and appeal. I don't see how it's appropriate to hat and ignore that. I am seriously engaging in good faith. I have had no problem showing evidence and engaging in good faith. It feels like there's no sympathy for the natural frustration that comes with dealing with something so Kafkaesque. I am trying to communicate how genuinely frustrating this is. Don't you think you would feel the same if you were in my shoes? It feels like I'm being banned longer than is reasonable. I fully understand why I was blocked and I have provided evidence that I was not just making up baseless accusations like I am being accused of. Desertambition (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You are blocked - when blocked, your talk page may only be used to resolve the block. Any further discussion not directly related to your block will result in your access to this talk page being removed and your block referred to the Unblock Ticket Request System. This is your ONLY warning. Nick (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Deeceevoice said this a few years ago and it still rings true today: Wikipedia is a technology-driven enterprise. As a result, it is skewed toward a white, male, under-50 demographic -- and any hack with a computer and Internet access can edit virtually anything. This has resulted in both misinformation and disinformation; appalling subject matter deficits; and various biases vis-à-vis subject matter treating people of color, the Third World and, most notably, African peoples. The nature of such biases runs the gamut from simply naivete and a kind of youth-driven myopia/provincialism, to a pervasive Eurocentrism/cultural bias, to racism (both mindless and calculated, subtle and blatant/virulent). I have found the project's self-policing mechanisms likewise riddled with some of the same problems, resulting in governance structures the members of which often function without integrity or accountability, who are often hostile, antagonistic, hypocritical and unjustly and unfairly punitive. And when the admins abuse their authority in the most blatant and egregious fashion, they are not held accountable -- while those guilty of lesser offenses often are dealt with excessively harshly. Some time ago, I was blocked after making legitimate changes to a document -- this after another, edit-warring editor openly and blatantly invited others to engage in tag-team edit warring, a favorite tactic on Wikipedia to censor the writings of other editors who don't toe the party line of a numerically superior editorial faction. Because I focus on subects dealing primarily with black people, it has been my experience that this dynamic is an exceedingly common one on Wikipedia when the subject in question treats people of color. The matter at issue in this case? A cabal of editors who repeatedly have tag-team edit-warred about the insertion of adequately sourced and perfectly appropriate material on the "Negroid" nature of the face of the Great Sphinx of Giza. They refuse to allow any inclusion of well-documented, widely known observations of various learned writers throughout history, or that of a former Harvard professor. At first, they relegated the information to a subsection dealing with crackpot theories. Then they deleted it altogether, claiming the source, which recapitulated information (also alluded to in other articles) printed in The New York Times, was unreliable. The very same editor in this case (whose edit note is linked to above), in an another article related to the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt repeatedly, however, edit-warred in preposterous information contained at the Stormfront website. On Wikipedia, an editor can decide some hack whose material appears on a neo-Nazi website is a reliable source, while a published Harvard professor writing in The New York Times is not. Am I calling this editor a racist? Nope. Not me. Gosh, that would be impolitic! Besides, Wikipedia wouldn't allow that. Someone can act like a racist, but you can't can't just up and call them one! That's a wiki no-no. I just named the editor on this page, and a wiki admin nominated my user page for deletion without even discussing the matter with me beforehand.[1] When other editors jumped on him, including another admin, the AfD was withdrawn. But then another admin jumped on the bandwagon and unilaterally deleted my user page -- again, without any sort of prior notice or comment whatsoever, puportedly objecting to my listing of links at the top of the page, saying I was using my page as a "soapbox."[2] Anybody ever noticed all the "This user is for/against/a (insert cause or socio-political stance of choice here)" boxes plastered all over people's user pages on this website? Betcha no one's acted to consign those thousands of user pages to wiki oblivion, least of all the overzealous Aussie admin who expunged mine. In another instance, an article treating the "racial controversy over ancient Egypt," after more than two years of effort by informed editors, has been gutted and trashed -- essentially by an appallingly ill-informed/misinformed, single editor -- with a decidedly eurocentrist viewpoint. The article, once provocative, interesting and enlightening, is now nothing more than an inadequate outline with a decidedly eurocentrist slant. The article is now essentially worthless. The same dynamic was at work on an article about Black people, where essentially a team of white (certainly non-black) contributors has determined that only they are allowed to define who black people are. Contributions by black editors have been reverted (deleted) summarily and repeatedly -- wholesale -- including corrections of grammar, fact and capitalization. And one of these very same offending editors had the gall to visit my user page to tell me to stop editing, because my edits were "not helping." In short, Wikipedia is all too often an unreliable source riddled with systemic bias. Personally, I do not believe Wikipedia is an effective venue for treating fairly or accurately subjects related to African peoples. Wikipedia is a noble idea, but inherently and fatally flawed. It has its pluses, but plenty of minuses as well. Don't believe the hype and proceed with caution. So, in short, dear reader, I give you fair warning: DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE IN PRINT. Unfortunately, some things never change. Desertambition (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Towards unblocking

You have identified a real problem: Wikipedia has lots of out of date and POV articles, and South African articles seem to be especially bad at times. I sympathize with you: I've worked for some years to keep Suidlanders free of white-nationalist guff. But the solution is not to broadly accuse your enemies of collusion in some sort of plot. You will find that most editors are here in WP:GOODFAITH. You will also find that the vast majority of editors share your concern for insidious ethnonationalist ideas infiltrating pages. Those editors work everyday to quietly improve pages with quality research and collegial cooperation. If you are to continue cleaning up pages, you will need that same spirit.

I would describe your conduct charitably as preaching to the choir, or less charitably, mansplaining. Our experienced editors understand the complexities of neo-nazism and racism and other such topics. That such unpleasant material continues to fester in the corners of Wikipedia is a result of not enough volunteer hours, not some fundamental failure on the part of our regular editors. Unfortunately, low edit WP:SPA editors far outnumber our core editing group. If you really want to fix the problem, you will need to work with the regulars, not against them.

I have some element of compassion for you in this matter: our rules are byzantine, and it is hard to fault you for failing to grasp the true nature of AN and our dispute resolution process. But weighed against my concerns with your behavior, I'll admit that your current unblock request is simply lacking. That you then kept posting preach-y screeds has not helped your case. But I think that you could be a productive contributor.

Tldr: this is your chance to succinctly convince an admin that you understand the rules of Wikipedia. Take your time. Research how Wikipedia works. Ask questions. Then when you're ready, ping me and we'll go from there. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• CaptainEek Thank you for your response. I do have questions and I appreciate that you have extended an olive branch. I feel I understand the many guidelines of Wikipedia better than I did before. I plan to discuss issues on the talk page rather than making WP:BOLD edits. I do not believe randomly accusing users of being neo-nazis is the correct way to communicate on Wikipedia and I never have. Consensus should be respected above all. If I disagree with a consensus, I should either wait a period of time and bring up the subject or I should present compelling evidence that says otherwise (and still abide by consensus even if it disagrees). I do feel that I understand WP:AGF and have abided by it. WP:AAGF seems relevant here as well. I feel like I have been labeled as assuming bad faith despite the fact that I have engaged in extensive discussion on this topic, provided sources, and provided detailed edit summaries. It feels genuinely unfair and stressful to be labeled an intentionally disruptive editor when I do not feel my edit history reflects this. I apologize for being overly involved emotionally in the past. Making the wiki worse is not at all what I am trying to do. I truly wish to resume editing and get involved again. Would it be ok to post the list of users that I posted above to the WP:ANI if I were to be unblocked? That seems to be the proper avenue and method. Desertambition (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Desertambition You could perhaps report them, though I would suggest some caution given you were just blocked for posting at AN. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps another way to put it is that friends and helpers don't want you to shoot yourself in the foot again. Desert, you're probably aware of the outcome over at Talk:Qonce. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 11:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  CaptainEek P.I. Ellsworth Thank you both for the advice. I have taken some time off and understand that I should just take some time off from interacting with the ANI. Bringing this issue up again so soon is unnecessary and won't be helpful. Anything controversial should just be discussed in the talk pages and we should follow consensus. I would appreciate a chance to prove my ability to edit in good faith if you feel it is appropriate to unblock me. Desertambition (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek: Hey CaptainEek, I was wondering if you had seen my message. Hope I'm not bothering you. Desertambition (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  What would you edit about if unblocked? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek:

1. Start talk page discussions for including confederate symbolism in the MOS:LEAD on Flag of Alabama, Flag of Florida, and Flag of Tennessee given the clearly controversial nature of my edits. I will argue that confederate symbolism meets notability criteria without mentioning or criticizing other users' character.

2. Reverse possible vandalism on List of renamed places in South Africa Edit 1 Edit 2

3. I would also like to update more cities on List of renamed places in South Africa. Both by updating articles that have already been moved (Ntabankulu, Qonce) and creating move requests for cities that have yet to be updated.

I would like to reiterate that I do not plan to go to the WP:ANI any time soon and I will not discuss user conduct on move requests. Desertambition (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)