User talk:Petulant Clerk

July 2019

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Oshwah, shouldn't libellous statements about living people be removed immediately? Or do different rules apply to The Signpost? Petulant Clerk (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost is an internal Wikipedia news project. It's peer-reviewed before being published and won't contain libelous statements that violate policy. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, I think this is a disgusting personal attack that we shouldn't be publishing. Libel is an obvious risk, considering it's made of personal statements with no sources or background - of course it's potentially libellous. It's so far in breach of WP:BLP that I really don't know where to begin - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat - Let me take another look. I just assumed because it was a signpost article that it would be up to snuff. Maybe I shouldn't have done that... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah. Someone else has opened a case at ArbCom on this (not the best step, I think), at which I have also commented. It's one of the most crass examples of trial by media I've seen. Fram has no opportunity to defend himself or explain his actions in specific examples, many of which have been stripped of all context and background. The editors should be taken to task quite severely for this. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat - Okay, I thought maybe someone added libel to the page that the publisher didn't add. SchroCat, I'm not here to make a judgment call on whether or not this signpost article is appropriate or not, and I do not want to hinder anyone's ability to discuss the appropriateness of the page... but this isn't the place to have such a discussion. Petulant Clerk was blanking the entire article, and that's disruptive behavior. If there are thoughts and feelings that this article isn't appropriate, a discussion needs to be started at the correct venue... not here. :- ) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah I agree that the blanking was the very worst way to address the problem (thus my earlier comment at the bottom of this section). You were right to block here - no complaints from me on that point at all. Petulant Clerk should have approached this in an entirely different way (AN, ArbCom, etc are much better approaches). My initial comment to you was because, despite what you said, this is a BLP issue (talk pages are also covered). The article, by its very nature, breaches both "neutrality, and avoidance of original research" which are two of the cornerstones of that policy. Libel is a possibility given that. It's not your fault, I know - you've just taken the best course of action to stop the disruption, but the root of the problem is still there. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat - I completely understand. Thank you for expanding upon your thoughts. That makes a lot more sense. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW Oshwah, you may want to have a look at this, and prepare yourself for an inevitable note to your talk page (not that Petulant Clerk flagged it as a BLP violation, and not that any specific blame should be pointed in the direction of those reverting his vandalism, as far a I am concerned). If he had flagged it as WP:BLPTALK, then a few people may have acted differently, I'm sure. - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat - I doubt that this would come to get me, but it's good to know about nonetheless. Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 10:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Much as I agree that the clusterfuck of an "article" should not be published (for the record, you're right that it's an unbalanced personal attack), edit warring to delete it will only ever get you blocked (and probably a search to see if you've been socking from another account - not that I am in any way accusing you of that) - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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:Petulant_Clerk reported by User:Bilorv (Result: ). Thank you. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 10:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah I upped the block to an indef, since this is either someone evading a block, or an unblocked editor using an alternative account in internal project discussions/to avoid scrutiny in violation of WP:ILLEGIT. Let me know if you have any objections to that. Someone should run a CU here too.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter - Sounds good to me! Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

My edit has since been endorsed by numerous administrators at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Disputed_Signpost_article. Petulant Clerk (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Huon (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2019 (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.

@Oshwah, Dank, Mkdw, Abecedare, King of Hearts, Beetstra, Cryptic, Jehochman, Dweller, and Black Kite: Petulant Clerk (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• PC, even though your page-blanking was arguably justifiable, (a) I find it hard to believe that this account is a legitimate use of a sock-account; and (b) your mode of editing helped fuel further drama when wikipedia least needed it. Therefore, I am uncomfortable unblocking you myself. If you can convince another admin that this is your only account and that you intend to use it for actually building an encyclopedia, you may have a better chance of being unblocked. Abecedare (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

a) Looks like I picked the wrong day to make a fresh start.

b) Not sure I understand what you mean by "your mode of editing" − I simply removed a disgustingly offensive hit-piece from view. Petulant Clerk (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

To make a fresh start don’t dive back into the biggest controversy in view. Go edit quietly for a while. Tell me which articles you would like to improve and then somebody will consider your unblock request. Jehochman ^Talk 22:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure why you pinged me, but I'm here now. While I appreciate a good pun (although I missed one in yesterday's Signpost) your choice of pun doesn't augur well for collaborative even-tempered editing. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}. We are contemplating whether to unblock. Is this user operating any accounts concurrently or do they have a past account that is blocked or banned? They claim to be a “fresh start”. Jehochman ^Talk 11:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Petulant Clark (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Petulant Clerk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

They failed if it was a fresh start. There won't be an unblock as this is a checkuser block and tpa has been revoked so they cannot tell us what account they had (if true) or file another on-wiki unblock request. Their recourse is to either file with UTRS for checkuser review or appeal to Arbcom. In either case, the name(s) of previous accounts will be required. The ranges they are using have multiple trolls and LTAs so I have no faith in this person.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your speedy assistance. Very helpful! Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)