User talk:SpruceyWind

Wikipedia's poor warning practices

Warned for correcting blatant misinterpretations of sources on the Hindu astrology and Western astrology wiki pages

Correcting poorly interpreted sources not the same as adding disputed content or unreliably sourced content, and yet, I have recieved multiple warnigs accusing my edits of doing things they have not done. Admins have continued to turn a blind eye to this.

False warning 1:

File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello! I'm Jc3s5h. Your recent edit(s) to the page Western astrology appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit 1:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1141960214

Since the sources cited/the sources within the cited sources for this sentence were Western authors examining Western astrology and making no note of other astrological methods, I made the above (faithful, accurate) edit, specifying "Western astrology" as opposed to the vague "Astrology". If the user who sent the warning did not agree, they should have opened a discussion, not resorted to reverting my edits and sending warnings without proper justification or discussion (they said my edit is incorrect but did not specify how or why it is incorrect in any of their warnings and reversions).

False warnings 2, 3, and 4:

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit 2:

(edit 1 also appears to be relevant here, since MrOllie was the user who reverted both edits, though the warning for edit 1 was sent by another user) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1141958893

This edit is faithful for the same reasons as edit 1 was faithful: the sources (some of them the same as the ones on the Western astrology Wiki page) examine Western astrology, not Hindu astrology, and my edit made this clear. It did not add any original research, unpublished information, or personal analysis. If the user who sent the warning did not agree, they should have opened a discussion, not resorted to reverting my edits and sending warnings without proper justification or discussion (they say I added original reserach, unpublished information, and personal analysis but do not specify how or why my additions count as original research, etc, in any of their warnings or reversions).

Now, my edit 2 has been removed and one single source has been added (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1141964485) that actually examines Hindu astrology, and yet, this single source has been used to back up claims of there being a "consensus" against Hindu astrolgy. Misleading and poorly written: reference 39 on the Hindu astrology Wiki (https://skepticalinquirer.org/2013/03/an-indian-test-of-indian-astrology/) notes that Hindu astrology has not yet been as widely criticised or tested as Western astrology, and it also notes that the methods used by Hindu astrology is markedly different from those used by Western astrology. Yet, the reference has been cherry-picked.

Wikipedia's poor blocking practices

False accusations on the admin noticeboard

I was blocked within minutes after I created a talk page topic on Hindu astrology after recieving a notice to do so.

My talk page, created at 21:03 UTC: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1141973000

The notice asking me to create one, posted at 21:00 UTC: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1141972611

However, on the admin's noticeboard for edit warring, user Jc3s5h has reported only the notice I recieved from MrOllie to create a talk page at 21:00 UTC and has ignored the talk page I created immediately after this at 21:03 UTC. Jc3s5h's notice of their admin noticeboard report was given to me at 21:11 UTC, which is well after I created the talk page. In failing to include the talk page I created in their report, Jc3s5h falsely implies that I have refused to participate in talk pages to discuss my edits. Jc3s5h's notice of their admin noticeboard report regarding me: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1141974199

On one hand, I am being chastised for taking offence against the false accusations I have recieved via warnings for things I have not done (see the above section on Wikipedia's poor warning practices), and on the other hand, I am being painted as unwilling to discuss my edits and resolve disputes, even though that is what I have been wanting to do for the past many hours/days.

Blocked indefinitely from discussing misinformation in article talk pages

My edits on the Hindu astrology and Western astrology Wiki pages served to make content more faithful to the sources that were used. Several sources on these pages study and disprove solely Western astrology and its predictive methods. However, the content on these pages implies that these sources disprove all astrological methods, even ones that may be in direct contradiction to Western astrology. For instance, Hindu astrology relies on the sidereal zodiac, whereas Western astrology relies on the tropical zodiac, and the two zodiacs differ by about 22 degrees depending on the ayanamsa used to calculate the sidereal zodiac (anothe difference is that the tropical zodiac is not calculated using ayanamsas. Please refer to the respective Wiki pages for more information).

By blocking me from participating in talk pages to discuss these changes, Wikipedia is complicit in allowing misinformation to do the rounds.

New user blocked indefinitely without any chance to understand Wikipedia's mechanisms

By the time I as a new user realised that Wikipedia works via talk pages and not multiple edit reversions and created a talk page topic on the Hindu astrology Wiki (amidst two users lobbing four unjustified warnings against me), I was blocked from participating in the talk page topic I created, and appeals that explicate my clear understanding of refraining from edit warring and using the talk page without stubbornly insisting on my ideas were ignored. I have been judged as guilty of disrespecting the results of talk page discussions without even having been given the chance to participate. I have falsely been painted as unwilling to engage in discussions even though I was blocked minutes after I opened a discussion. I was blocked before I was even able to reply to the first comment on the topic I opened. I have now also been blocked indefinitely. This is hardly appropriate, and calls into question the standards applied to all of Wikipedia's articles.

Unwarranted threats and false accusations are not welcome.

If you are unable to use reasoning, knowledge, and accurately used sources to argue against my edits, please remain silent. SpruceyWind (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia policy, disputed content needs a source. You cite none. I suggest you find a source, and then discuss this on the relevant talk page(s), before you find yourself blocked for edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it is also Wikipedia policy to ensure that the sources used actually back up the claims being made. My edits do not add any new claims/content, but merely more accurately reflect the sources that other editors have inserted. SpruceyWind (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block Notices and Unblock Requests

Your recent editing history at Hindu astrology 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; read about 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. JaggedHamster (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Multiple sources that proclaim Western Astrology to be a pseudoscience, based on reviews of methods used in Western Astrology, have been used to proclaim other traditions of astrology as pseudosciences. Other astrological traditions such as Hindu astrology use entirely different methods of prediction from Western astrology, and a test of Western astrology is therefore not the same as a test of other kinds of astrology. For instance, Hindu astrology (sidereal zodiac) does not even use the same zodiac as Western astrology (tropical zodiac). Correcting incorrect usage of sources upholds Wikipedia's purpose. The users reverting my edits do not uphold it.SpruceyWind (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason for the block: edit warring. Please read WP:GAB. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

it is very saddening to learn that Wikipedia will block users whose edits improve the accuracy of Wikipedia pages without recognising the bullying and silencing tactics employed by users who push their agenda without any regard for intellectual honesty. I would like to be unblocked so that I can resume talk page discussions with other users, NOT to continue "edit warring". SpruceyWind (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request gives me very little confidence that you will refrain from edit warring once the block expires or that you will respect the result of any discussion, so I see no reason to remove the block early. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Is it not part of Wikipedia's policy to ensure that sources are not misused? There have been complaints by two other users about the misuse of sources in the Hindu astrology wiki page as well (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/987305745 and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/987295406). These complaints are from as far back as three years ago and have either never been addressed or have been covered up via intellectual dishonesty. Blocking a user who is trying to resolve issue by opening new talk page threads (mine is at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1141973000) speaks badly of Wikipedia's priorities. The reason I previously resorted to recurring edits is because I am new to Wikipedia's internal mechanisms and did not know that talk pages even exist. I assumed the users who spoke of blocks were making strange empty threats, since they were in fact directly opposed to improving the accuracy of a Wiki page. I expect another decline, but just know that upholding misused sources and blocking users who try to correct them is not the way to run an encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

I have extended your block indefinitely. Any admin is free to lift your block if you demonstrate an understanding of WP:EW and commit to refraining from any further violations. Yamla (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

It is cleary an explicit understanding of "WP:EW" that I have demonstrated thus far. I have repeatedly indicated that I will not make any edits to the Hindu astrology page and will instead resume my talk page discussion that I opened, which you admins have completely blocked me from participating in since I opened it. I am a new user who made a misstep before familiarising myself with Wiki's internal mechanisms. There is no need to take excessive action. SpruceyWind (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

a misstep? You were warned five times, which you ignored, removed and dismissed as "Unwarranted threats and false accusations". You don't need to agree with everybody but you do need to show an understanding of policies & practices embodied in the five pillars such as WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:VNT. You're appealing without reflecting on why your appeals are being declined. Take 48 hours to think on how a collaborative community works in order to produce an online encyclopedia. Another poor appeal will probably result in the removal of your talk page access and your ability to make further appeals. Cabayi (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Rescinded unblock request and comments about it

Unblock reason:

I believe I have made only one misstep, because there is only one policy I have violated: the edit warring rule/3 revert rule. Furthermore, only one of the five warnings I have removed was for edit warring; the other warnings I removed pertain to actions I have not actually taken, which is why I believe they are false accusations/unwarranted threats.

Additionally, as a new user I initially did not understand that warnings were not equivalent to users intimidating a user they disagreed with or that blocking referred to a site-wide editing block (I thought the users would block me from appearing on their feeds). I now understand the policies involved behind warnings and blocks, and I assure you that I will not break any of them, especially the edit-warring rule/3 revert rule for which I have been blocked. I will not repeat my contested edits, and if/when contested in the future, I will not revert repeatedly. I will go to the relevant talk pages to discuss my ideas, and if they are still not accepted, I will let them go.

I hope the next admin will reconsider blocking me from editing all of Wikipedia for an indefinite period of time over my actions. My edits were in good faith and aimed at increasing the accuracy of pages I edited.}} SpruceyWind (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the above unblock request

You were told, "Take 48 hours to think on how a collaborative community works in order to produce an online encyclopedia." Are you absolutely sure you want to stick with ignoring the advice you've been offered? I very strongly suggest you want to listen to what you are being told. You still have a chance, before another admin comes along and reviews your request. --Yamla (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yamla, I have been blocked for edit-warring, and belive I already understand the policy and am committed to refraining from edit-warring even though 48 hours have not passed. I have not ignored any advice.

I believe a collaborative community hears ideas out even when they are not agreeable, but I have been blocked from discussing my (still undiscussed and thus lacking an already available consensus) ideas in the relevant talk pages.

SpruceyWind (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replies after rescinding unblock request

@Cabayi:, it appears you have difficulty staying on the topic. Do you have any proof for the wild accusations you have made, or do you go about your duties by cherry picking information and ignoring any information to the contrary of what you believe?

Firstly, FOUR of these five warnings you mention have nothing to do with edit warring/the three revert rule, which is the sole the reason I was blocked. You are free to re-read these four false warnings in the new section on my page entitled "Wikipedia's poor warning practices".

Secondly, it is entirely my prerogative to add a disclaimer on my own user talk page to deter users from making potential false accusations and unwarranted threats (which is what four of the five warnings you mention have amounted to). Refrain from taking this out of context and falsely claiming that I have suggested my violation of the three revert rule is a false accusation/unwarranted threat.

The only comments I have made in direct response to my violation of the three revert rule is that I understand the rule and will comply. How is it justified to block me from Wikipedia indefinitely over this? The guidelines for unblock appeals state that the user must show they understand the policy they violated and must commit to refraining from further violations. I have done this repeatedly.

I added my false accusations/unwarranted threats disclaimer (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1141967784) 40 minutes before I recieved the second warning for edit warring/the three revert rule (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1141973760), meaning I had only recieved ONE single piece of communication about edit warring/the three revert rule at the time I wrote this disclaimer, and as a new user, I had still not realised what it means, especially because I had to unravel the four other false warnings lobbed against me by two users who seem to be working together.

I have also left the second warning for edit warring on my page ever since I recieved it, and I was blocked only 3 minutes after recieving it. I had only 1 hour between the first and second warning for edit warring/the three revert rule, and this hour was filled with four other unrelated, unjustified warnings. How is that enough time for a new user to understand what has happened?

SpruceyWind (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's a four-step warning process. The warnings do not need to be for the same issue. You ended up blocked, so it's patently obvious to everybody but you that the warnings were not "false".
Secondly, yes, it's your prerogative to manage your user talk page as you wish. It's the prerogative of the readers of the page to look at the page's history and see what you're doing.
"How is it justified to block me from Wikipedia indefinitely over this?" It's indefinite, not infinite. Blocks are preventative not punitive. Once you show you understand where you went wrong, and convincingly reassure the community it won't happen again, the block will be lifted. So long as you continue to insist the warnings were false, you're obviously not in that place.
"two users who seem to be working together" - acquaint yourself with watchlists and you'll understand how multiple editors can respond to the same events. Your failure to understand what is happening does not make Jc3s5h and MrOllie conspirators.
"How is that enough time for a new user to understand what has happened?" I asked you to take 48 hours to consider things. You returned to the point within twenty minutes. Yet here you are 24 hours later having restructured your talk page, removed Yamla's comment and Drm310's attempt to apply a chronological order to the page, and still complaining about not having enough time?

At this point, I'm somewhat WP:INVOLVED and will not respond further to your appeals. Cabayi (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: Firstly, none of the multi-level warning templates you have linked to indicate that users can be warned for violating three different policies without any justification for two of them, be blocked for violating only one of them, and then be expected to agree that they have violated all of them. The default seems to be to believe any accusation lobbed against a user without investigating whether the accusations truly apply. Read my section on warnings for my arguments on why they do not apply.

Secondly, if you had really seen what I was doing, you would realise that in direct response to the violation of the policy I have been blocked for, I have done nothing besides promise to comply with the policy, and you would not have falsely accused me of doing the exact opposite of this.

Thirdly, I have repeatedly demonstrated that I understand the rule for which I have been blocked, and will comply. Why have you decided that I will continue to make contested edits or that I will ignore any talk page discussion results? I have not even been allowed to participate in talk pages yet. Does innocent until proven guilty not apply here at Wikipedia?

Fourthly, it is up to me to decide what content I want on my main page. Why would anyone be against me removing comments that are no longer relevant, such as comments about my latest unblock appeal that I have rescinded, or against me ensuring that my unblock requests show up directly under the first block notice? Why should they show under the notice for the admin noticeboard report against me? It is technically not chronological when placed in that spot, because that is not the notice I was replying to.

Fifthly, why would I take 48 hours to "understand" the edit warring policy after I had already indicated multiple times that I am commited to refraining from making any more contested edits and that I will use the article talk pages responsibly?

Sixthly, given the above, I am not "still complaining about not having enough time". I merely pointed out that the one hour between the two edit warring warnings were not enough to the understand edit warring policy, mainly because I had to spend that hour understanding four other unrelated warnings. The point is that getting blocked immediately following this was too hostile an action against a new user.

Once again you resort to cherry-picking and ignoring any information that contradicts your beliefs.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SpruceyWind reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: ). Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

As you can see from sections I added to my user page 11 months ago, I admit that I have had detailed opinions on what I considered to be behaviour falling under the kind described in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers on the part of a certain admins and old users against me as a new user. I saw these actions that way for these reasons: as a new user who had no concept of what blocking or warnings mean on Wikipedia, and who hadn't even been told about the existence of talk pages until after several, hard-to-understand warnings and ascerbic reverts of my edits had already been lobbed at me, I had merely the 1 hour in which all this was happening to understand what was happening on my own and respond appropriately by creating a talk page topic and ceasing to revert others' edits, which I did in fact do. However, that was ignored in the report given to admins about me, I was blocked minutes after creating the talk page topic, and every single thing I have done in that full hour as a newcomer having to handle a barrage of new information has been lambasted. In the last unblock review, I have also been portrayed as badly-intentioned because I said I made one misstep, which I only said because there is only one rule for which I've explicitly been blocked, although it is true that I made many controversial choices as an uninitiated newcomer besides the one that got me blocked. I understand the rule that got me blocked and I will not engage in any edit-warring by reverting others' edits and re-instating mine, but I would appreciate it if you let me know what I am meant to do if I receive warnings I disagree with, such as the four warnings I have receieved for things other than edit-warring, none of which have made it into the explicit reason for blocking me. However, please note that my opinion on those four unrelated warnings does not mean that I am also a disruptive editor, because I now have a far better understanding on how Wikipedia works, and in the event that my edits are contested, I will either go to the talk pages or let any reverts of my edits remain, which will likely entirely prevent any warnings in the first place. Hopefully, from my 11 months of radio silence and no sockpuppetry or other disruptive actions, it is evident that I am not intending to damage Wikipedia in any way, and hopefully, the block can finally be lifted and I can return to making useful edits like the few in my edit history that were accepted/not controversial. Thanks for your time.

Accept reason:

I'm assuming good faith here and lifting the block. Welcome back and happy editing. Yamla (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]