User talk:Before the Bang
Before the Bang, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Before the Bang! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC) |
AfC notification: Draft:Lin Shu-ling has a new comment
[edit]
Your submission at Articles for creation: Lin Shu-ling (October 14)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lin Shu-ling and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lin Shu-ling, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Disambiguation link notification for October 15
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taitung Miramar Resort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artemisia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
October 2018
[edit]
Hello, I'm Zanhe. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Huang Clan Empire seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Zanhe (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Also, I've moved the article to Miramar Huang family, as "Huang Clan Empire" violates WP:POV and WP:OR. -Zanhe (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 26
[edit]An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Justin Huang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Amis
- Taitung Miramar Resort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Amis
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
[edit]|
|
Hi Before the Bang! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Disambiguation link notification for November 14
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taitung Miramar Resort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Panai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Before the Bang. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 25
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taitung Miramar Resort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
[edit]|
|
Hi Before the Bang! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Disambiguation link notification for June 3
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited W. Ian Lipkin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CCP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Notice of General Sanctions for CoVID-19-Related Articles
[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.
-Thucydides411 (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am specifically concerned about your edits at Ian Lipkin. Please keep in mind that special provisions apply to biographies of living people. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am once again concerned about your recent edits to Ian Lipkin. You added a huge amount of poorly sourced (much of it to timestamps in a podcast and in a Dr. Oz show) material. Much of it was synthesized to make claims that the sources themselves do not make. I've already warned you about general sanctions in this area, and I am not going to repeat this warning yet again. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
No it's not poorly sourced - that's an easily provable lie. You were asked many times to provide valid reasons for removing referenced factual information but refused to respond. Since you refuse to discuss it sensibly, then send it to an open discussion and seek consensus. In the meantime take a break from your information suppression job. Repeatedly vandalizing the page is juvenile and dishonest. Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Before the Bang: as a third party who has no prior POV on this, I reviewed the sources being challenged and I have agree with the characterization of many of them as poor and the general thrust of the OR concerns. I think you may misunderstand the notice that's been placed here. Articles under general sanctions and WP:BLP articles in particular are expected to comply as strictly as possible with the WP:CCPOL:
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Thucydides411 is under no obligation to answer your rather odd questions on the talk page. The WP:BURDEN is, in point of fact, on you to justify these edits. Please also be aware that vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia and complying with the BLP and CCPOL policies is almost never considered vandalism by admins. If you wish to continue with these edits, you must discuss them on the article talk page or risk sanctions, which no-one wants to see. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
So Eggishorn, which citations (you say there are many) do you consider poorly sourced and why? Which questions are odd? And why can a user delete large amounts of referenced material without having to respond to questions as to why he deleted it? Can you give actual examples instead of making generalized statements? Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Before the Bang, I'll take these in reverse order, if you don't mind. A user can delete large amounts of material without having to justify the deletions because that's what the policies I earlier referenced require of us. I gave the "actual example" of a quote from the BLP policy that says exactly that so I'm puzzled why you are asking that question again. I'm ok with repeating myself so:
Contentious material about living persons ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
emphasis added - The questions that were odd were, I'm sorry to say, your only attempt at discussion. None of them are obviously about the sourcing and all of them are apparent attempts to beg the question. I don't see how those questions are relevant to the usage of your sources. I'll say this again, since you've now edit-warred on the basis that "discussion is ongoing": No other editor is under any obligation to satisfy you with the answers you wish and taking the lack of answers as an excuse to re-instate the text is an error on your part. See the link about BURDEN I posted earlier for specifics.
- Some of the sources that are possibly questionable in context are India Today, Global Times the Dr. Oz Show, and the Straits Times. With the exception of "Global Times" these are usually OK but in the context of Covid they have to be used carefully and only with corroboration. The bigger issue is that you are injecting your own views to say what these don't actually say. Take the statement: "This time-frame indicates that Lipkin was potentially contagious around the time of his media appearances in a high community-contact environment." You have sourced this to nothing any you can't because this is your own personal WP:SYNTH of other statements. This is a clear violation of the WP:OR policy and therefore also of the BLP policy. I hope that I've answered your questions adequately and specifically enough for you.
- There is also the issue that prompted the notification below: Don't edit war, ever, especially not in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. As stated above, sanctions were authorized by the ArbCom for BLP's in May 2014 and equivalent ones for Covid-19 by the community this March. I strongly urge you to engage in a open discussion before making any further edits to this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Eggishorn, thanks for your reply. I asked which questions were odd? That means: Can you please quote one of the questions and tell me why it’s odd? Or even better answer it! Instead you’ve just repeated that in your personal opinion they were odd and spouted more unsubstantiated, ‘out in the weeds’ generalizations. If you’re so sure about your case, then why refuse to answer even one question and engage in a discussion about it? Please, if you are genuinely independent, let’s look at the evidence (the specifics of the article) and establish a baseline of truth from which we can proceed in a logical fashion. Here are the questions. 1. Is Lipkin an "extremely poor source" for his own views? (How is this question not related to a discussion of the sources as you claim, btw?) 2. Is Lipkin's messaging to "the whole country" relevant to a presentation of his advice on SARS-CoV-2? 3. Did Lipkin "misremember" that he saw a "particularly compelling" 2003 WHO study that found masks "had a dramatic impact on community transmission"? 4. Is Lipkin's quote on Dr. Oz a misquote? Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Before the Bang, this is not a college debating society or a pseudo-legalistic proceeding. I have said multiple times that no-one, myself included, is required to satisfy your demands and that continues to be the case. The policy in question is WP:BURDEN. This is the fact: You attempted to add material,. You have been challenged on that material. It is now up to you to justify why you think this material is allowed under policy. It is not up to anyone else to answer your questions. Feel justified all you want that we are cooperating to stonewall you or whatever but that is not going to change the situation. You are not allowed to keep re-adding your challenged material on the basis that no-one is answering your questions. Go to the talk page and please engage in an actual discussion. Multiple experienced editors have challenged this material as violating our core policies and until you address those concerns you are engaging in disruptive editing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Again, name-calling, unsubstantiated accusations, and misinformation. You write: “Go to the talk page and please engage in an actual discussion.” I have - why don’t you go there instead of bombarding me with juvenile threats and generalizations? Again, I have explained several times that an hour-long broadcast between two eminent professors discussing Lipkin’s views (in which Lipkin speaks for the bulk of the time), constitutes a reliable primary source for an article presenting Lipkin’s views. I have then asked why do you think Lipkin is an unreliable source for his views? Your response? Crickets. I have been accused of misquoting - ok - so i ask ‘Which quotes are misquotes?’ I need to know which specific quotes you’re talking about so i can prove that they’re legitimate, right? Your answer, ‘It’s not up to anyone to answer your questions.’ So how on earth can i defend the quotes if you're not game to say which ones? Now, you did mention four sources that you said are ‘possibly questionable’. (So the other 70 odd sources are fine? Why were they wiped?) These four include The Global Times, which is particularly amusing as Thucydides411 wrote: “Global Times is reliable for this sort of basic information (someone met with someone).” So on that point it seems like an argument between you and Thucydides. Could the two of you please debate that point together and get back to me as a united front? Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020
[edit]
Your recent editing history at W. Ian Lipkin 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, I haven't reverted more than three times in a 24-hour period so why are you sending me this? Is it supposed to be an intimidation tactic? Did you send the same to Thucydides411, who started this when he unilaterally deleted material backed by over 70 different sources? Then repeatedly deleted it without engaging in a discussion on specifics? Bear in mind he does have a reputation for wiki-wars and wiping referenced material, especially concerning his pet pro-CCP causes. Before the Bang00:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Before the Bang (talk)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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:Before_the_Bang reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Canvassing at Ian Lipkin
[edit]
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Ian Lipkin. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Note: I am referring to this message you made. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Salvio 09:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Before the Bang (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
According to the link you sent, WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE a block was placed on my account because I “restored material that didn’t comply with Wikipedia’s content policies.” Specifically, according to the reasons given by Thucydides411, three of those (from over 70 sources cited for the article) were audio or video sources. The most egregious of these related to direct quotes "sourced to a podcast". (see article's 'talk' page) So, let’s look at the rule. WP:PUBLISHED It says: “audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources.”
So far so good? Next step is: What are the criteria according to the rules? WP:SOURCEDEF
“The piece of work itself” - a published, public, archived broadcast
“The creator of the work” - eminent Professors W. Ian Lipkin and Vincent Racaniello
“The publisher of the work” - Columbia University
According to the Wikipedia criteria, that’s an impeccable source. As such, I ask for the block to be removed, the material to be restored, and for the matter to be referred to open discussion so a consensus can be reached. WP:CONTENTDISPUTE I gladly accept WP:BURDEN and welcome an opportunity to continue explaining why Ian Lipkin is a reliable source for his own views.
Finally, re WP:ADMINACCT I would ask why you considered the above source unreliable, and why have you supported a block request from a user who repeatedly wiped material, not just from the three disputed audio sources, but from more than 70 cited sources? Before the Bang (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are attempting to justify your edit warring; edit warring is never acceptable, even if you are correct with your edits- as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. To be unblocked, you will need to agree to not edit war and discuss any concerns you have on the article talk page first. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
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.
Before the Bang (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You are attempting to justify your edit warring (generalization); edit warring is never acceptable, (generalization) even if you are correct with your edits (begrudging acknowledgement) - as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. (generalization - this is not ‘he said/she said’ - it’s very simple - did Lipkin say these things or not? - easily verifiable - click on the link - timestamp: 32.35) To be unblocked, you will need to agree to not edit war (a truce or a surrender to a serial edit warrer?) and discuss any concerns you have on the article talk page first. (I did. Take a look.) I am declining your request.
With respect, can we take a rest from the unsubstantiated generalizations? They don’t help resolve or clarify - they do the opposite. The rule you enforced the block for says: “When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections (we’ll get to that later), any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it, must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies.”
Therefore, if the editor does ensure the material complies, there’s no breach of the rule. That’s the scary bit - that’s where we have to go into specific quotes from the offending material to justify the ‘blank ‘n block’ manoeuvre.
Bearing in mind the WP:WHYBLOCK (‘when in doubt, do not block, consult other administrators for advice’) and Re WP:ADMINACCT: Which specific quotes violated Wikipedia’s content policies? Before the Bang (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for edit warring; whatever other reason the blocking admin may have put in the block notice isn't really relevant, as edit warring suffices for this block. You'll need to address that, and nothing else, in any future unblock request. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
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.
Before the Bang (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
jpgordon I have addressed the exact reason put in the block notice. It's a blatant non-truth to say i haven't. Here's the direct quote again: "You have been blocked ...for edit warring in violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Check the notice above if you don't believe me. So what's the specific WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE violation? "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies". As demonstrated above, i did ensure it complied. Therefore the block is invalid. If you want to shift the goal posts after the fact then the original block should be removed - then you can re-block me for whatever the new reason is - but according to WP:ADMINACCT, "the administrator must explain the reasons". Repeatedly saying 'you're blocked just because' is not explaining the reason. The rule also says: "Administrators may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed (for) Failure to communicate ...with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions)". It's not good faith to give a reason, then when i address it, say, 'Well that reason isn't really relevant - it's another one', but we're not telling exactly what your violation was.' My feeling is you're not prepared to discuss the reasons in good faith. Can we get some other administrators to take a look at this case?Before the Bang (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were edit-warring. Edit warring is not acceptable. Period. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
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.
Before the Bang (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reverting Vandalism is not Wiki-warring According to the rules: “On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific (Yipee!) meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia ... presenting the sum of all human knowledge."
Cool. Nice rule.. I wonder what the rule says about repeated blanking of material that complies to Wikipedia’s content policy? Let’s see...
“The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view) ... is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.”
Ok, that’s interesting, coz that’s exactly what Thucydides411 did. The rule specifically states: ‘no point of view’ is not the same as ‘neutral point of view’. Therefore, according to the Wikipedia Rules, repeatedly blanking two sections of Wiki-compliant content and replacing it with five lines of fluff, i.e ‘no point of view’, is...sorry to say... vandalism.
So, as responsible Wiki-community members, how can we stop this blanking vandalism according to the rules? Firstly, Wikipedia says: “a sudden large decrease may indicate a section blanking.” Ok, the page history shows we definitely had that on multiple occasions. So then what should we do? “Revert the vandalism by viewing the page's history and selecting the most recent version of the page prior to the vandalism.”
Oh, that’s what i did.
According to the rules, “Reverting vandalism ... is not edit warring”. On the contrary, it was an act of good faith to uphold the “core content policies” of Wikipedia.
Therefore, according to the rules, I was not edit warring - meaning the reason for the block is invalid.
Re WP:ADMINACCT, (specifically: "Administrators ... may be sanctioned (for) Failure to communicate ...explanations of actions ...(especially when explanations ... are sought)": If you are going to say it wasn’t vandalism, can you please explain why repeatedly blanking Wiki-BLP compliant material and posting aggressive ‘talk’ comments is not vandalism? If you are saying it’s because the blanked material was not Wiki-BLP compliant, then you must give specific examples from the content that are not Wiki-BLP compliant.
After all these accusations of “seriously misquoting Lipkin”, “extremely poor sources” and promoting “conspiracy theories” - then being blanked ‘n blocked - I’m still yet to encounter an accuser who will discuss specifics of the actual content. That's normal in a totalitarian regime, but it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's rules as they stand today. Can an administrator who has actually read the material, which the rules require you to do, explain why you think that is?
Again, on the grounds that "reverting vandalism is not wiki-warring", I ask for the block to be removed.
Before the Bang (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It's a content dispute, and disagreeing with you is not vandalism. I strongly recommend you change your approach to collaborative editing when this block expires, or you are very likely to end up indefinitely blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
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.
Before the Bang (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Boing! said Zebedee wrote: "It's a content dispute, (generalization) and disagreeing with you (then blanking) is not vandalism (generalization). I strongly recommend you change your approach to collaborative editing (blanking is not collaborative editing) when this block expires, or you are very likely to end up indefinitely blocked." (punitive threat for requesting WP:ADMINACCT) (my brackets) No, repeatedly blanking Wiki-compliant material without engaging in discussion about the content is clear-cut vandalism. The rule says: “malicious removal of encyclopedic content ... without any regard to our core content policies... is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.” That’s precisely what Thucydides411 did, repeatedly, despite being asked to engage in discussion, then warned to desist from vandalizing the page and seek consensus. So what’s the difference, according to the rules, between vandalism and a content dispute? In a ‘content dispute’, an editor is required to: “Focus on article content during discussions (and) comment on content, not the contributor.” Most importantly it says: “explain which of their edits you object to and why you object.” For two months i have been begging editors/administrators to "focus on article content" and “explain which of the edits you object to and why you object.” Re: WP:ADMINACCT, I’m still begging you to explain. So far we’ve had no sustained discussion on specific content - just blanking, insults, unsubstantiated accusations, truckloads of generalizations, and threats. I have zero problem with an editor disagreeing with me. I would love a good faith editor like Amigao, for example to review/tighten/condense/discuss the material. But repeatedly blanking the content without engaging in content discussion violates all the Wikipedia guidelines for resolving disputes. It’s textbook vandalism. If i’m wrong, there’s a very simple way to prove it. Post an example from the content. If you can’t do that, please remove the block. Before the Bang (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your block appears to have expired. SQLQuery me! 16:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
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.
- Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Jpgordon, and will also add that persistently failing to get the point is disruptive in its own right. Salvio 10:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
As an aside, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, not what they say about themselves. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just to clarify the reasons for the block, I blocked you because you were edit warring and I considered the edit war particularly serious, because it violated this clause of the BLP policy: When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. I simply took notice that there were good-faith BLP objections, that did not appear to be unreasonable on their face and that you were restoring such material unchanged without obtaining consensus. Salvio 08:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Salvio giuliano: Note that Before the Bang has just added back in the exact same material that earned them their previous block: [1]. This is Before the Bang's first article-space edit since the previous block. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Salvio giuliano: Before the Bang has now reverted a second time today to add in the exact same content that they originally got blocked over. They also added in an accusation of "vandalism" in their edit message this time. Before the Bang doesn't seem to have learned anything from the last block. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Permanent Unappealable Ban
[edit]@Salvio giuliano: Inflammatory lies (Lipkin is a Columbia University professor ffs) made while canvassing, as Thucydides411 mentioned one section above, and conspiracy theories (Holmes was the only non-Chinese scientist invited to help map
) warrant a permanently un-appealable indefinite block on WP:NOTHERE WP:TROLL grounds. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Brilliant idea! Pretty soon we could just have people like you running Wikipedia! No need to stop at permanent bans, we could WP:URLTRK and WP:VOCTRN. Before the Bang (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)}} wrote: "I strongly recommend you change your approach ... or you are very likely to end up indefinitely blocked."
Dear Above, Guess you’ll object on WP:BREAKINGNEWS grounds but WP:SHOUTING WP:WIKICODE and/or generalizations is not in and by itself a winning argument. I’d be surprised if it’s grounds for WP:INDEFENITEBLOCK
Here’s the little known thing: if you click on that code, there are rules behind it - good ones - well thought out - with specific details of when a rule should, or should not be applied.
Re the WP:ADMINACCT rules, can you post the ones that say quoting W. Ian Lipkin is prohibited - and those “refus(ing) to get the point” will be WP:BBB (‘blank-block-n-banned’)?
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |