Flatoncsi
Please don't revert edits without giving a reason. Can you please discuss it here? Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- the redirect was for non-notability, but the McNutt campaign was the most-watched one in 2016. The original poster, who had his own separate problems, didn't make that clear. I've been trying to salvage the page during the day, and you came in and wiped the page with the redirect. There's notability, I just need an hour or two to include the refs and show it. Flatoncsi (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for giving your reason, and for working on it. I hope you find enough to establish notability, though it's not there yet. You may want to use the { {underconstruction} } tag to make it clear as this is sitting waiting for review by the New Page Patrol, which is how I came across it, and others are likely to nominate it for deletion. The other option, if you need longer, is to move it to Draft:Thomas McNutt, work on it there where it's safe from deletion, then move it back when it's ready. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, those are good ideas. If I can kick some of these harassing editors off my back I think I can show this was notable. We'll see if the haters win. Flatoncsi (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Please don't be too put off by all this. I understand the intense frustration of experienced editors when dealing with articles on what look like non-notable topics, but I would also never want an editor to be put off. I've created thousands of articles and work on the backlog of articles tagged for notability and on New Page Patrol, but have still found myself on the losing side of an AfD where I've spent a lot of effort and think the opposing arguments are crazy. It's always hard, but sometimes that's the consensus. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Boleyn, You're being very kind and thoughtful, but I suggest that if you look into some of these editors, they're very pointedly malicious, and not like yourself. Flatoncsi (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I read your comment [1]. I suggest you take a deep breath and relax. I believe what CT was indicating was your lack of understanding Wikipedia criteria for article inclusion. Given your comments, you should read, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN before responding to anyone concerning the notability of article subjects. reddogsix (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- He was being a dick. I appreciate your message, I appreciate the suggestion. But having to fight the demeaning tone and arrogance of long-time editors isn't fun, it's bullying in any context. Flatoncsi (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Diverse Interests
editWhile I understand that you had a content disagreement with Chris troutman, you may want to read WP:HOUND. If you continue to make nonsensical reverts of his edits on random pages, this account will be blocked. Kuru (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Kuru:Actually you have that reversed, he's been hounding me for weeks. He makes constant undo reversions of good articles for no reason. In this most recent instance, he came in and reverted someone's cn tags without giving an explanation. I reverted his edits, and I gave an explanation. So it was not "nonsensical" and it wasn't harassing. I don't make nonsensical edits, and all of mine are given reasons consistent with policy. Flatoncsi (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- His edit added the tags, [ yours removed them. Your edit summary and actions make no sense, and certainly has no basis in policy. I can see no prior edits or interest from you in the articles Damnatio memoriae, Uranyl chloride, Nihang, Origin of water on Earth or Prosecutor where you've targeted this editor. If you have a dispute, take it up with them on their talk page. Following them around to jump into unrelated disputes is against policy and simple harassment. I would suggest breaking off at this point. Kuru (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have long-standing interest in all of those topics. Just because I have varied interests doesn't mean I can't edit. If I was focused on one subject, Chris Troutman would say I wasn't being objective anyway. Flatoncsi (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Asking for Citations
edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Jonathan A Jones. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's not vandalism to point out that you needed a citation for a claim. Flatoncsi (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please leave other editors' user pages alone. They are not articles requiring references. BencherliteTalk 17:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's a very specific claim, and it requires a citation. I'm not going to let unsourced citations stand. You can learn to live with that. Flatoncsi (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Requesting a citation is unusual and unwise, but not necessarily vandalism. However this edit [2] in which you changed the page to include incorrect information is unambiguous vandalism. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- I could only find a citation to 12, not 32, so it wasn't vandalism. You admit it was unsourced, thanks for being honest at least to that extent. Glad you could find a sock account to ban me for asking for a citation though. Flatoncsi (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Given that you have only just come off your block for breaching WP:CIVILITY immediately embarking on personal attacks does not seem the wisest behaviour. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yea, if half the things on your talk page were true, you wouldn't be so thin-skinned. Your bullying and demeaning tone to other editors is what set me off on this tangent, and I'd do it again. Come at me, brah. Flatoncsi (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Given that you have only just come off your block for breaching WP:CIVILITY immediately embarking on personal attacks does not seem the wisest behaviour. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- I could only find a citation to 12, not 32, so it wasn't vandalism. You admit it was unsourced, thanks for being honest at least to that extent. Glad you could find a sock account to ban me for asking for a citation though. Flatoncsi (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Requesting a citation is unusual and unwise, but not necessarily vandalism. However this edit [2] in which you changed the page to include incorrect information is unambiguous vandalism. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's a very specific claim, and it requires a citation. I'm not going to let unsourced citations stand. You can learn to live with that. Flatoncsi (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please leave other editors' user pages alone. They are not articles requiring references. BencherliteTalk 17:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a warning that gross incivility like this message is ground for immediate block. Do not do it again, thanks. Alex ShihTalk 17:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- You know, it doesn't surprise me that yet another sock account decides to get high and mighty when I make one comment pointing out the absurdity and arrogance of one specific editor. Take your civility and shove it up your ass if you think it's just going to be a one-way street where shitheads like Jonathan Jones get to talk down to everyone else and someone like you comes around to selectively complain about civility. Flatoncsi (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alex ShihTalk 18:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Flatoncsi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #19175 was submitted on Sep 07, 2017 18:40:25. This review is now closed.
September 2017
edit {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)- I am perusing the BLP violations in your recent edits, violations which alone might be enough reason to block you indefinitely. It is entirely possible that I find more reason to extend this block. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Flatoncsi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You're not even giving a reason, just blindly citing to BLP policy. Please explain how I violated BLP, and where, with citations. This is ridiculous. Flatoncsi (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2017 (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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2017 (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.
Flatoncsi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #19223 was submitted on Sep 12, 2017 23:43:05. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not "blindly" citing BLP policy; your recent edits contain defamatory material "sourced" to YouTube clips and hack websites. Other defamatory material is sourced to a decent enough publication but reports someone's personal opinion in Wikipedia's voice. It's pretty obvious you're all about "citizen journalists", and that's great, but not for us. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Allow me to educate you about how "rules" work: there is a posted rule. Then there is an act which one claims is in violation. They then apply the rule to the violation to make an "argument". You continue to identify which act was in violation. Defamation, a word you clearly do not understand, is importantly, a false statement. You might wonder, "well what is false?" And there, again, Wikipedia can help you. False is something that is untrue, a lie. You say that my edits were defamatory, yet you can't point to a single thing that I cited which was not true. You can't, because everything I wrote was cited and referenced. I even went so far as to include the original source material, which in some cases were government documents. Your original claim for the block was to blindly cite to BLP without any application of the rule to my edits, you gave no application, no reason. Now, you say that it's because my edits were defamatory, again without citation or reference. You have the burden to prove your accusation, and you haven't. This is just an arbitrary block that is against the rules, and you can't cite to anything that I wrote which violated BLP or any other policy. Flatoncsi (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Flatoncsi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am appealing this, again, because the reason for my original block was not sufficient and not justified by the rules. There was no accusation that I violated the rules. I was blocked for a much longer period of time than was warranted. The reversions to my edits were whitewashing. I'm being told that the only way to appeal is to either accept the block as justified, or to accept the block as justified, meaning that there's no reason to appeal if there's no way to get someone to review the reason for the original block. There was no reason stated, no cause, no violation, no citation to a violation of policy, it was entirely arbitrary. The original block even said that they were going to research my history to try and find an excuse to permanently block me. It would be nice if an admin spent more than a nanosecond reviewing these things without the extreme deference to other admins who are blocking editors they clearly have some issue with. Everything I wrote was sourced, the things that were deleted were backed by primary and secondary sources. Flatoncsi (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You'll need to at least provide a satisfactory explanation for your recent edits on Carlos Uresti before any of us are likely to consider an unblock. Yunshui 雲水 08:47, 13 September 2017 (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.
Flatoncsi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ok, once again, I don't know what's being alleged. The initial block by User:Drmies failed to cite to anything other than to say that it was a BLP issue. I've appealed twice, now, and each time I am still not being given a reason for the block. User:Yunshui declines my most recent appeal because I need to explain edits to Carlos Uresti, of which there were several. I'm not being told what the alleged violation is on that page. I made several edits and added content. They were reverted with the notation that the person reverting them thought they were good faith edits. User:Drmies banned me anyway, and made threats to permanently ban me. "It is entirely possible that I find more reason to extend this block." Yet, in all of this, across multiple admins and multiple appeals, no one will specify what the actual violation is, i.e. "you posted X, which violated policy Y, by doing Z". My ban is the result of an admin overstepping their authority under the rules, and failing to apply the rules. As such, it is not a valid ban. I would like a neutral third-party administrator to require either 1) clarification on what the alleged violation is, so that I can explain myself, or 2) to remove the ban. Flatoncsi (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
OK, I've never seen you before, so I'm entirely neutral. Except for that I'm a strong supporter of Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy, which, along with WP:RS, are the reason for your block. You cannot and must not insert insufficiently sourced derogatory material about living people into articles. YouTube videos are not reliable sources. Blogs are in general not reliable sources. Strongly partisan websites are not in general reliable sources. It's possible that there is a reliable source for the allegations you posted here; it's incumbent upon the editor to provide such a source at the moment a derogatory item is added. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:20, 13 September 2017 (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.
Flatoncsi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The rationale for my ban keeps shifting. Initially it was a blind citation to BLP across multiple edits and pages. Then after appeal the violation accusation changed/evolved to an accusation of defamation, not sourced to any specific edit or page. I showed why that is wrong. Then after another appeal it was that it was unsourced. Then it became that the source wasn't reliable. Now it's that I posted derogatory information on the Uresti page. The information on Uresti was sourced to the primary and secondary source. It was not a partisan outlet, it's a non-profit.[1] I posted the primary source material. I put it in context. I noted that there was a later dispute about the charges. The initial reverter even said these were obvious good faith edits. An allegation of domestic violence where the caller was specifically worried about his status as a Senator is clearly relevant. Many domestic violence victims are silenced, resulting in ~70% of claims going unreported.[2] You can argue that perhaps it should be contextualized or otherwise sourced differently, but there's no serious argument that it's not relevant, and there's no argument that it's a bad faith edit, that it's defamation, that it's derogatory. Derogatory is something showing a low opinion of someone, something that's using a negative connotation. What I posted was factually true, it was objective. I did not post that he was "beating the life out of her" - I made clear that it was a 911 call, it was a claim of domestic violence, and that she later changed her story. That is what the thing is, without any loaded language. You could argue about relevance perhaps, but that isn't what you said. And as this is my 5th? appeal, if you can't even clarify what the accusation against me is, the ban should not be sustained. As well, a disagreement about whether a 911 call alleging domestic violence where the caller specifically references the title Senator, isn't worthy of a one week ban with threats to make it permanent, at most it's worth reverting the edit and moving the debate to the talk page. The ban is not supported by policy, the process used is fatally flawed, and my ban should be undone. Flatoncsi (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As has been explained to you repeatedly now, Youtube and personal sites are not reliable sources. Especially for potentially negative or controversial information about living people, sources are absolutely required to meet those standards for reliability. This is not negotiable. As you seem to have repeatedly failed to understand this, I am revoking talk page access. Since you have repeatedly exhorted others to actually read things, I strongly suggest you read the policy on reliable sources, linked in this message, and make sure you clearly understand how to identify an acceptable and reliable source. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:47, 13 September 2017 (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.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Flatoncsi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #19229 was submitted on Sep 13, 2017 18:25:51. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Flatoncsi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #19240 was submitted on Sep 14, 2017 18:56:55. This review is now closed.