User talk:Kitkatscot2019

December 2019

Hello, I'm I dream of Maple. I noticed that you recently removed content from Joanna Cherry without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. I dream of Maple (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to remove defamatory content

The page is being vandalised by anti-SNP activists in a political situation. I will keep removing the defamatory content. Kitkatscot2019 (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I dream of Maple (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Couper2802, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. I dream of Maple (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking political opponents with gossip is a poor show and proves Wikipedia is vulnerable

The recent constant editing by political opponents of Joanna Cherry shows how vulnerable Wikipedia is too unethical tactics by groups with an agenda against a candidate. During the last two weeks before a general election it is irresponsible and unethical to continually attack a politician who has Scotlands best interests at heart. Kitkatscot2019 (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello, I'm YorkshireLad. 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 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. YorkshireLad (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Tmbox | style = background: #f8eaba | image = | text = This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Acroterion (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)<}[reply]

How can I reply when you have blocked me

Use one account - your original account. Acroterion (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I only have one! Seriously, how can I prove I only have one account?

Technical review shows that this account is probably unrelated to the IPs and accounts that have been edit-warring with essentially the same content. However, you will remain blocked until you can show us that you're willing to abide by Wikipedia policy and not edit-war, which in itself is a bright-line violation of policy. There is clearly a connection to Couper2802 and the IPs, which leads me to think that you've been brought here. I've protected the article so that edits can be discussed on the talkpage as is required in a normal tone of voice without shrill accusations. If you can assure me that you will respect other editors and Wikipedia editing requirements, I will unblock. Acroterion (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So - you’ll keep me blocked from editing until I can prove I won’t break rules. How is that possible to prove, while blocked? I’m not sure how I can respect other editors who keep maliciously editing a page for political purposes during a critics time in my country’s run up to an election? If I stay blocked then I can’t prove to anyone what my behaviour will be.

"I’m not sure how I can respect other editors who keep maliciously editing a page for political purposes during a critics time in my country’s run up to an election" is a strong indication that you are using Wikipedia as a political battleground, and that you'll go back to your previous combative behavior if unblocked. Unless you commit to constructive discussion and observance of Wikipedia editing policy, and dispense with attacks on those who disagree with you, you won't be unblocked. Acroterion (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Circular arguments

So again, how does anyone prove they won’t break the edit warring rule while blocked? What sort of commitment do you find acceptable? I’m assuming that pointing out the defamatory falsehoods on the talk page is acceptable? There’s nothing objective about letting falsehoods and rumours stand on a wiki page. Given the near constant abuse Ms Cherry received online, it seems irresponsible of Wikipedia as an organisation to allow her harassment to continue unchecked. Kitkatscot2019 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, you need to undertake to explain, civilly and neutrally, how the sourced coverage in the article represents undue emphasis, to not edit-war, and to stop treating other editors as opponents to be defeated. Acroterion (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

Kitkatscot2019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As a new user of Wikipedia I did not fully understand how the editing process worked and thought it was just a case of removing inaccurate or defamatory information especially in a sensitive political situation. I will in future make comments on the talk page and make sure that the editing is more neutral

Decline reason:

You are blocked for sockpuppetry, you'll need to address that. Huon (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2019 (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.

We've established that the accounts are unrelated, at least not by technical means. Acroterion (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Acroterion - I’m not sure how to prove I’m not a Sockpuppet. To be honest I’m going to leave this for a while, I don’t have the technical ability to meet all the requirements that seem to be asked for.

That part's already cleared up. What remains is to establish that you'll work within the guidelines I've mentioned in the section above. Acroterion (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to take time to read the policies and try to get a handle on them. My initial response was a reaction to seeing things I knew to be untrue repeated on what I had thought to be a trustworthy site. I see that any one with an editor account can make these edits but I obviously don’t want to make the same mistakes. What is the most constructive way to deal with this (genuine question)? It mus have happened often before so if there’s a format to resolving these issues I’d like to read that properly first. Thanks.

Ok Acroterion Acroterion (talk) I think I have got a better handle on how things are done - I understand that just undoing edits - whatever their motivation - won’t be enough to keep a wiki accurate. I am reading on the BLP pages & others for more guidance on how to address these issues & will ask for advice from more experienced editors first. It will take me a while but I won’t edit or post until I have time to make sure I’m doing the edits properly. Is there a general “ask a more experienced” Editor page that I can go to before future edits (if any)? Thanks.

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

Kitkatscot2019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have taken time to read the guidelines, especially those relating to edit warring, Living people Pages and using neutral source material - I will not be editing political pages during the current political campaign but respectfully request an unblock so that I can in future share useful information on other subjects with wiki users and readers. I apologise for not understanding the rules to begin with & my belligerent attitude to volunteer editors. I would like to be a constructive part of the wiki community

Accept reason:

Given the discussion here, I will remove the block. Good luck, and please ask if you have any questions(the Teahouse or Help Desk are available) 331dot (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

. Kitkatscot2019 (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are saying you will not edit about the current political campaign, what will you edit about instead? 331dot (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot There are other things going on in Scotland - changes in policies for cared for young people, education, health care and land reform for example. I would also like to add to pages on things like animal rescue and Scottish history, especially women’s history and things like architecture and herbal medicine in the Scottish tradition. Wiki can be useful but I don’t want to get sucked into the political stuff. I’m sure there are plenty of experienced editors who can deal with the part politics stuff.

Acroterion, what do you think? 331dot (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of unblocking. I realize that it's easy to get into a mode of correcting apparent problems at all costs or to imagine that everybody's a potential opponent, but if you look at the recent history of the article that you were editing, it appears to me that many of your concerns have been addressed by now with steady, drama-free edits to content and sourcing. If you can take that as a model, you'll be off to a good re-start. Acroterion (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Acroterion & 331dot - I’m hoping to have time over Christmas to add to a few articles but will keep reading in the Teahousr and other guides to get a better grasp of things. Appreciate your help! Kitkatscot2019 (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]