User talk:Declanhx

Removing well-sourced information

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. You've already received numerous warnings and blocks in the past; consider this your final warning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OhNoitsJamie, From my understanding you are a regular user, and your talk page is full of all kinds of conflicts with other users. I would be happy to abide the rules of wikipedia but I don't see your authority to hand out warnings You are welcome to show me your perspective on this. Declanhx (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove source information again, I will indeed show you my perspective on this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OhNoitsJamie , I've been respectful and empathetic towards you, Please refer to this article for the proper way to treat users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#:~:text=Assuming%20good%20faith%20(AGF)%20is,the%20project%2C%20not%20hurt%20it.

Thank you. Declanhx (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing against current consensus. Unless Ohnoitsjamie is feeling less than generous, this will be your last warning; continuing to remove sourced content from Killiechassie will result in you losing the ability to edit that page. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second block for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:17, 18 January 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi Jaime. I gave the both of you an hour to reply to my contributions on the talk page and no responses were made. It's funny how you blissfully neglect the talk page but as soon I make the edit you don't like you're on it immediately. There was a discussion, and the agreement came to Agree: 1, Disagree 0. The consensus came to agree that the owner be anonymous and that's what my edit did. Furthermore, you have been aggressive and in breach of the good faith policy, you've neglected to provide sources and you didn't punish 66.69.180.204 for "edit warring" at all. This isn't for your benefit, this is so that your actions are summarized in writing for when I escalate this higher. You are not a tyrant. You must follow the rules. Declanhx (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't an unblock request, it's just general complaining. If you want to be unblocked early, you will need to demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked, and undertake not to repeat those actions. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:38, 18 January 2022 (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.

Hi Girth Summit

I am happy to do this. I was under the impression I would be appealing to Ohnoitsjamie directly, which wouldn't be worth the effort if he were to continue to act the way he has. I would be happy to make an appeal for this block and I believe I have demonstrated a sound understanding of the rules. I will spend the time to write a formal unblock reason for you now. Thank you. Declanhx (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use other people's signatures in your posts - just type their name normally or, if you want to ping them, use a template like this one: Declanhx

Admins tend not to consider appeals on blocks they have made themselves. What you have written so far gives the very strong impression that you don't have a sound understanding of the rules, but I suppose the next administrator who comes along to review your next block will have to make that determination for themselves. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I wrote that appeal with the expectation that Jaime would read and make the decision from it. I wasn't really interested in investing time in my reply. Declanhx (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We both responded with policy-based explanations of why your edits were inappropriate; you chose to ignore the warnings and continue edit-warring. Given that you'd previously been partially-blocked for this, this block is a full block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declanhx, you are clearly editing against consensus and excellent sourcing is in the article. You must drop this or you are at high risk of an indefinite block. Cullen328 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi admins. You can ignore the context if you need to. What's important to note from this is my perspective on the situation and how the admin has behaved poorly.

Context: Current notoriety has emerged on J.K.Rowling's property due to the content of this article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-60023868 where activists were able to track down the house of J.K.Rowling and protest outside. The article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killiechassie at 23:28, 17 January 2022 was highly visible on google searches as a verifiable source that J.K.Rowling was connected to the property, with online discussions on the topic citing the article as proof of her ownership of the property.

I'm aware that current laws surrounding doxxing are ancient, but I thought it would be a good idea to at the very least mitigate the damage by coming to an agreement that the information should be removed to avoid J.K.Rowling facing unwanted protection, This fell under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources , specifically the section barring the posting of addresses.

At 00:06, 18 January 2022‎ I made the final edit which went unchallenged for 14 hours until 13:59, when an unsigned user burst into the article to undo the article and demanded a change take place by editing the article first at this time, and at 14:34 makes their first contribution to the talk page,

At, 14:37 , I was at the gym and noticed that the page had been changed, I saw the user's contribution on the talk page, skimmed through it and decided it would be best for me to give out a proper and lengthy reply when I got home. At the time, I made an edit to the article on my mobile phone reversing their edit due to their edit reasons being completely incorrect on the surface. Such as: "As a public figure it's not really doxxing". I saw this as vandalism and something that should be debated in the talk page as per wikipedia policy. At 14:42 they undid the edit without any discussion or approval.

They were 1 strike away from the 3 edit reversal rule. at 14:49, 18 January another talk page post was made to add to points made at 13:59.

At 15:22, , The user I had spoken to yesterday did not chastise the new user for edit warring, and did not reverse their edit changes. I assumed they had just forgotten to do the edit themselves and did it myself at 16:26 , 2 minutes later, The admin immediately reversed this change and at 16:29, I receive an angry message on my talk page demanding that I stop editing an article without a good reason, or face an immediate ban. Which is wrong on two counts:

1) It's not reasonable to give a "final warning" or threaten someone with a ban without introducing yourself as an admin. I questioned whether they were an admin to begin with and rather than clarifying themselves politely I get a rude message back saying "If you remove source information again, I will indeed show you my perspective on this." At which point I refer him to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#:~:text=Assuming%20good%20faith%20(AGF)%20is,the%20project%2C%20not%20hurt%20it and no apology is issued.

2) My reasoning was detailed and perfectly clear. While my first edit response of "no edit warring" can be seen as inadequate, my second was not. "The police stated that the incident wasn't intimidation, not doxxing. I will write a full reply to your input on the talk page. Please do not make edits without coming to an agreement first. Undoing edits is editing warring and not allowed on Wikipedia. I have set the part you edited back to how it was, if you want it changed, discuss it first". I countered the user's point, and explained to them the rules of Wikipedia. I try my best to follow the rules, and to the best of my knowledge this is the way to make edits on a page properly.

No reason was given as to why they saw the quote in 2) as an invalid reason.

I ask them on the talk page at 16:39, and his response is a lazy and rude: "My opinion has not changed, and I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing that I've already explained twice here"

Yet:

1) Their opinion has clearly changed, since the article went unedited by him for 14 hours with the changes I made.

2) He hasn't repeated reasoning as to why his opinion has changed, only his new opinion.

Anyway

at 17:23, I write a full response to the unsigned user, methodically countering their points and giving them insight into how wikipedia works.

I then write a request for sources at 17:27, and at 17:36 the admin replies with sources which show that the property does belong to J.K.Rowling but doesn't argue why it's not a privacy issue or relevant to the article.

I'm then ignored for 1 hour 30 minutes by the admin, I leave 1 hour after 3 additions made to the talk page at 17:56, 18:06 and 18:09, at which point I make the edit back and the admin goes into full authoritarian mode and blocks my account.

Furthermore, at 14:45 , He asks me to talk to him on his talk page, and then greets me rudely on his talk page in response at 16:21. "I have no idea what you're talking about."

TL;DR: / Summary of context: The admin hasn't acted in a way that shows empathy. He has been rude, impatient , wrong and unfair. I would normally take the week and not put the effort in, but the admin's actions are distasteful and it's not something you should allow on your website.

Unblock appeal:

I try my best to understand and abide by the rules. Breaking them isn't something I intend or desire to do. I'm passionate about helping an individual not get doxxed on the internet. I would understand it being frustrating for an admin to deal with someone debating whether an cat was Brown/Copper for example, but the unfortunate truth we have to accept is that wikipedia's content has wider implications, and the posting of someone's address needs to be treated correctly.

As far as understanding why I've been banned goes, I can empathise that repeated edits are annoying. I can understand why an admin dealing with the same page for hours is annoying. My edits were not intended to be "edit warring", and I tried my best to stimulate discussion on the talk pages. Even at this very moment they are unanswered 3 hours later. I would like to follow the rules properly and be a productive user. I personally think trying to save someone from harm by being doxed through the proper methods qualifies me for this.

I have no desire to "repeat" actions that are against wikipedia's rules. I only want to help people.

Thank you. Declanhx (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declanhx (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're blocked for edit warring, and this long post barely even touches on it. In particular, "I saw this as vandalism and something that should be debated in the talk page as per wikipedia policy." makes no sense because vandalism is never allowed on Wikipedia under any circumstances. Any edit that is made with the intention to improve Wikipedia is, by definition, not vandalism, and if something can be debated, it can not be vandalism. That said, if you find content that you think violates our policy on biographies of living persons, you can remove it immediately without discussion and even claim an exemption to edit warring. When experienced editors disagree that it's a policy violation, the next step is either dispute resolution or the BLP noticeboard. If you had raised the issue at the proper noticeboard instead of continuing to edit war, maybe you would have gotten consensus to remove the content instead of being indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2022 (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.

Hi NinjaRobotPirate (talk, This block was escalated and a full response was written below at 01:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

By "Debated on the talk page", I meant that the user who vandalised the page could make their case in the talk page for the edit rather than make it without a consensus. As I was told was the correct way to handle this situation by an admin on this very page.

Furthermore, "Any edit that is made with the intention to improve Wikipedia is" Isn't defined by anything. It's subjective at best. You could argue that someone censoring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis so that their child can read the article is "intending on improving wikipedia", despite it being vandalism. And even if your definition were true, why would I get admins warning me at 16:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC) and 19:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC) above for "vandalism" when my edits were clearly and explicity shown in the talk page as intent to improve wikipedia? To me it appears the admins are being selective with their banhammers.

Thank you for your advice on how to handle the conflict. Had I known that this was the proper way to do this, I would have used it. Unfortunately I can't make much use of this advice while i'm being struck with unjust banhammers. As stated, the edit was wasn't "continued", I reversed two lots of vandalism and if there's disgareement fine, but that's not cause for a block.

Your "experienced editors" have shown me that they can be wrong, rude and hotheaded. You can see below that Girth Summit _(blether) for example is active in this thread butting their opinion everywhere and putting words into my mouth until I shut them down at 1:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC) and then they suddenly stopped contributing to arguments.

"maybe you would have gotten consensus to remove the content instead of being indefinitely blocked." Maybe I could have, had the admins told me to do this instead of being rude and wrong. I would have gone through those steps as suggested and pushed my argument through the proper channels. You lot do seem to want me to be in the wrong so badly that you'll put words into my mouth. I'm not impressed. I'm not a bad person.

Furthermore, if you understand that I have been indefinitely blocked, why are you commenting on here, and not the section below?

If your intention is to not look like authoritarian douches, you need to put more effort in.

Thank you. Declanhx (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say at this point a week block is fair, and you can stop me from editing that page specifically if you want. I have no desire to break the rules and i've shown my intention to be a productive user. At the end of the day this is all evidence of why the internet needs regulation and it doesn't hurt me if you continue to powertrip on regular users just trying to help. It only makes the case stronger. Declanhx (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to disparage others while dictating your own block terms further indicates you have no idea how Wikipedia works or why you were blocked. I have revoked your talk page access. Please read Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System for your options going forward. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin This unblock request is long, but some relevant context has been left out: this user was temporarily blocked, then indef partially blocked, then indef fully blocked last year, all for edit warring. They were unblocked on the condition that they refrain from further edit warring, use article talk pages, and use dispute resolution efforts if discussion fails, to which they agreed (see block log and user talk history). From my perspective, a one-week block for starting up with edit warring again is pretty lenient; your mileage may, of course, vary. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Girth in response: I was making contributions to a yet another sensitive article to protect someone. Users were making edits that would imply that a trial had gone a certain way and could influence the outcome. My point about our duty of care and wider implications stands and is proven here as well. We are not tyrants, we must understand our power and protect people.

I took the lessons from the previous block to heart, and improved my behaviour. As you can see, I made attempts to talk to people and gather a consensus before editing, and referenced edit warring to stop other users from breaking these rules.

Furthermore, as explained, I wasn't edit warring. Under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions there are exemptions for dealing with vandalism, which the edits I was reversing were. I have no intention of edit warring in the article at all. If you want to make it a week, that's up to you. I'm here to help people and follow your rules. Declanhx (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of what constitutes vandalism. Including information that has been reported on extensively in nmerous reliable source is decidedly not vandalism. This had already been explained to you numerous times at Talk:Killiechassie by several experienced editors. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie, I've got serious doubts about this person's capacity to contribute constructively. Given that (a) they cannot see that they were edit warring, (b) they appear to think that you were vandalising the page, and (c) they were unblocked on the understanding that they would knock this sort of stuff off, I'm in a place where I think the best course of action would be to reinstate the original indef site-wide block.331dot, any thoughts? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit _(blether) You've misunderstood if you think I thought OhNoitsJamie ^Talk's posts were the vandalism. As stated, the vandalism is the posts made at 13:59, 18 January 2022‎ , and 14:42, 18 January 2022‎ on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killiechassie&action=history. You are welcome to explain why they aren't. Declanhx (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ohnoitsjamie's edits were amongst those you reverted, so if you when you claim an edit warring exemption it would be natural to assume those were included in your description. I remain of the opinion that you are not well-suited to this environment. You remain at liberty to appeal this latest block; please don't ping me again, another admin will review any unblock request. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit _(blether) , If you're going to demand I don't tag you perhaps this should be on the agreement that you remain off my talk page where you can not make any more statements that are wrong. I did not once claim that OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 's statements were vandalism. Thank you. Declanhx (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer, I am a new user on Wikipedia, if I'm doing something wrong, let me know. Dec, you made a generalizing statement saying you undid vandalism. You say Jamie's edit wasn't vandalism, so you undid an edit made by an administrator with no justification on the talk page. Senhara (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Senhara (talk , Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope the behaviour of the admins here doesn't discourage you from participating. To respond to your point: I had already specified which posts were the vandalism. Editing a post after an admin has made an edit does not break any of rules on wikipedia. In fact, they are supposed to have good conduct with users as referenced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct. The talk page did have justification, and at the time of the edit after a reasonable time had passed, or now, 6 hours later, has no response been given. For future reference, you are correct that you must always propose a change on the talk page first. Declanhx (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the admins have already said similar, please do not include my signature in posts. They also do not discourage me, in fact, their behavior here further encourages me to use and talk on Wikipedia. I desire to deconstruct the post defining vandalism. At the time of your original post on your talk page defining you were undoing "vandalism", I see no elaboration on what you saw as vandalism and what was not. As such, it was fair for the other administrator to assume you claimed vandalism for undoing the edit that was performed. Additionally, consensus on the talk page for the house in question shows everyone else disagreed with your statement, Jamie even going to provide a source detailing who owned that property. After reading the rest of this talk page, I feel like I have little to contribute here which others haven't stated already, so I have little to say here. Senhara (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have little to say Senhara (talk, Then I suggest you don't write a paragraph giving your opinion on the matter when you have stated yourself that you are new to this website. Declanhx (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of commenting further, unless any admin reviewing an unblock appeal has any questions. Again, please stop pinging me. Again, don't use other people's signatures in your posts. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior is so far out of line that I support an indefinite block. Cullen328 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input Cullen328 and 331dot but you will have to explain WHY you think it's out of line. There's nothing constructive about your criticism. Declanhx (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also support an indefinite block. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+Support; chronic WP:IDHT and a rather creative interpretation of our policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offering criticism, just my opinion, which I think speaks for itself. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would your "opinion" "speak for itself" 331dot (talk? Declanhx (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've called it disruptive editing in the block log. For the avoidance of doubt, it's a combination of the edit warring, the refusal to hear what multiple highly experienced people are telling you, the accusations of bad faith editing on the part of obviously good faith editors, topped off by a generally belligerent attitude. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not bowing low and kissing your boots isn't a "belligerent attitude".

- "it's a combination of the edit warring"

We've established that you thought I was reversing an admin's comments, when I wasn't, I was reversing an unsigned user who didn't use the talk page at all for making edits. My final edit was after a lengthy amount of time of zero activity on the talk page while protecting someone from being doxed. If you think that warrants a permanent ban I do hope your address isn't put on wikipedia for people to find and come to your house. As has quite literally happened to J.K. thanks to the article.

- "the refusal to hear what multiple highly experienced people are telling you".

Out of the 5 admins that are on this page:

1 has acted like an ass for half the day and been rude, as stated.

1 (you) has made statements that are completely false and refused to admit this.

1 has claimed that a consensus was reached when in reality the "consensus" was contradicting the state of the page from the night before.

1 hasn't provided any constructive feedback and has simply said they support a full block.

1 has given me a second final warning for some reason and i've still been banned regardless of not breaching the second final warning.

So do forgive me for not being "listening" to you. I am normally happy to listen to the admins if they are competent, and want to talk to me in good faith. But i'm not seeing it.

I understand the rules of wikipedia just fine, I know how to act on here. Maybe your "high experience" should contain some empathy. I'm not delusional, and if you can't see how my intentions were good it's a darned shame that you're in a position of power like this.

- "The accusations of bad faith editing on the part of obviously good faith editors"

As stated above at 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC) , You don't know what you're talking about. You thought I was talking about an admin when I wasn't. To give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you or another admin can explain why a new unsigned user reversing an edit out of nowhere twice is something desirable in a wikipedia editor. I'd love to hear it.

- "generally belligerent attitude"

You're pulling this crap and expecting that I act like you're being civil????

I am happy to be respectful. I am happy to listen to reason. You'll note that i'm not being uncivil in any of the talk pages or this talk page at all unless one of you has responded in this way.

This isn't an unblock request by the way, You'll have to do better than being wrong and rude before I appeal to you. I'll talk to a better admin who's worthy of my time, Thank you.

Declanhx (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]