Kavex98162
| This is Kavex98162's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Templates
Hi, can you please stop moving empty (or other) templates around? You are creating empty pages and redirects which then need to be deleted, which is rather useless work for everyone involved. Fram (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavex98162 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) You didn't ask a question; based on your edits this help request, I strongly advise you learn the basics before using semi-automated tools. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Oliver Emanuel
Please stop mucking about. There are several ways an article may be deleted. This is not one. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Admin noticeboard discussion
There is a discussion about your edits at WP:ANI#Disruptive move / delete attempts. Fram (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GirthSummit (blether) 10:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)- Hi - I'm just noting that this block is indefinite, as in an end date has not been set, but it does not have to be infinite - if you confirm that you will stop disruptively moving pages around, I'll be happy to unblock. If there are privacy concerns about the page we can address them, and if the subject isn't notable the page can be deleted, but moving it like that is not the answer. GirthSummit (blether) 10:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Kavex98162 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I really need Wikipedia. I promise but what’s the move feature for? My actions and justification are here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oliver_Emanuel. As a previous poster mentioned I went about it the wrong way and am not sure how to proceed and not getting much help. I don’t want to draw attention to myself or vandalise the page. Kavex98162 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
User has indicated they should not be unblocked. GirthSummit (blether) 20:07, 18 January 2021 (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.
- Hi - you haven't added an reason to unblock to the template. Can you confirm that you understand that the moves you were making were disruptive, and that you will not do anything like that again? GirthSummit (blether) 18:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- The move feature is described at WP:MOVE. It is not an alternative to deletion. I still don't really understand why you were trying to hide that article - please could you explain your earlier actions? Do not give away any private information about yourself, or about the subject of that article - just tell me in general terms what it was you were trying to achieve. GirthSummit (blether) 19:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'd also add that, as a general rule, if you're not sure what a feature is for, it's a good idea to find out before trying it out. GirthSummit (blether) 19:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- You don't need to keep adding your replies to the unblock request - you can participate in regular threaded discussion down here.
- You seem to be saying that the IP address that added that stuff is yourself - are you aware of the rules around WP:BLOCKEVASION? You're not permitted to edit through an IP to get around the fact that this account is blocked. I don't pretend to understand the stuff that you put on that talk page, but it seems that you have already been in touch with the oversight team about it, and you should follow the advice that they have given you. If I unblock this account, will you take that advice and leave that article alone? GirthSummit (blether) 19:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm... I think... you shouldn’t unblock me to stop me editing other people’s pages.
Do you think legal will reply or will it just stay like that forever.
- OK, then I'll leave the account blocked. Any IPs you edit through will also be blocked. I have no knowledge about your correspondence with legal - I imagine they will reply at some point, but I have no way of knowing when that will be. GirthSummit (blether) 20:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Could someone unblock me please. I promise not to vandalise other people’s pages. I’m not making legal threats because I can’t afford a lawyer, and besides I don’t trust them. I keep getting blocked for being disruptive. How does asserting my legal right make me disruptive. Every time I post something it gets undone, if I undo the post I get blocked.
This is being done by primefac, and others. I just checked and primefac is oversight and beurocrat, no wonder I’m not getting anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavex98162 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- No. You have edited repeatedly while logged out and created at least one new account, even after saying you shouldn't be unblocked. You have been told repeatedly that we will not revdel or oversight the stuff you want revdelled or oversight barring a direct request from WMF Legal (who are presumably still reviewing your request). All you have accomplished is to seriously strain the patience of anyone who may have been the least sympathetic toward your requests. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- (e/c) Wikipedia persists and grows thanks to cooperation of thousands of editors. The cooperation is a coordinated work. The main means of coordination is obeying the same rules and talking to seek consensus when rules are not clear enough, or when they are interpreted differently. You break rules, even when told not to, and you decline attempts others take to communicate with you. Such behavior is strictly against a way Wikipedia community works, hence it disrupts Wikipedia internal ecosystem. As a result, the ecosystem defends itself (by reverting the disruption done) and protects itself (by blocking you from causing further disruption). So your current situation is an obvious result of your previous actions. Too late to complain – but you can still learn (provided you really want to build Wikipedia, not to disrupt it). And be prepared it would take time. A long time. --CiaPan (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I can’t defend myself if I get blocked for undoing vandalism. I presented a logical legal argument which I have included below. I am a proponent of internal policies because often the law is inadequate in it’s reach, and scope, for example clamping down on sock puppetry.
Suggesting a deletion discussion of Oliver Emanuel on the talk page or removal of non biographical information that can be used to identify and process personal information of individuals other than the subject of the biography, specifically those in red ink.
Suggest suppression of the edit history from admin.
Suggest Revision deletion and suppression of edit history.
Suggest blanking page until discussion is completed.
Suggest blanking the page until a legal consensus is reached on inclusion of other people’s names in a biography of a living person.
Suggest a consensus on the inclusion of living persons in an Encyclopedia at all, and blanking of BLP pages until a review is completed.
Tabloid journalism is not a reliable source of information and I suspect the source reference justifying inclusion of other people and this page has not adhered to the Wikipedia policy for referencing.
I suggest a specific policy for including lists or tables of names of other people on an other persons biography is included on the BLP help page, and the page oversight protected. A rigorous inclusion criteria should require reputable references that confirm the person has played a significant part in the life of the author, such as non tabloid sources confirming family members names and occupations. Borderline self promotion or abuse of Wikipedia as a web host.
The text below is from the BLP Wikipedia advice page (retrieved 17/1/2020). Privacy of names Shortcuts WP:BLPNAME WP:LPNAME Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations -Actors (my additional text)- , it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.
Should removal of names significantly affect context page should be deleted A1 no context.
The below text was retrieved on 17/1/20 from the ICO and British Government website.
What is personal data?
At a glance
Understanding whether you are processing personal data is critical to understanding whether the UK GDPR applies to your activities. Personal data is information that relates to an identified or identifiable individual. What identifies an individual could be as simple as a name or a number or could include other identifiers such as an IP address or a cookie identifier, or other factors. If it is possible to identify an individual directly from the information you are processing, then that information may be personal data. Gov.uk, P8
When does the right to erasure apply?
Individuals have the right to have their personal data erased if:
the personal data is no longer necessary for the purpose which you originally collected or processed it for; you are relying on consent as your lawful basis for holding the data, and the individual withdraws their consent;
The only justification not to remove personal data is to protect life, implausible as ceasing to process personal data would achieve the same purpose. Adding personal information should be considered in the same terms. Did adding personal information pose a threat to an individuals life.
I am not happy it fell on my shoulders to start this discussion and it is completely inappropriate that I should be doing so or participating in any further discussion other than to withdraw my consent to process my personal data, and request a deletion discussion which I nominate and vote for, twice! 82.132.216.183 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done: You have been told multiple times that a name appearing in a table (validly, I might add) cannot and will not just be suppressed just because you don't want it there. Legal has been informed, there is nothing to suppress, so I really wish you'd just be patient and let them get back to you. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
To give an answer to the question, the answer is that the content is not suppressible, which is why it hasn't been suppressed, and will not be suppressed, unless Legal tells us otherwise. You made a reasonable request, which was declined and passed up the chain, and now you need to wait until Legal says something (if they say anything at all). Primefac (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Can someone also please delete my f****ing name from this talk page.
- Between your attempts to evade your block, I would suggest you read up on the Streisand effect. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is freely editable and anyone can write what they want. To delete a name added ‘in error’ to a page from the edit history all that’s required is to request wikipedia stop processing personal data, and it must be deleted so it can’t be undeleted to comply with GDPR. The edit history can and should be suppressed and undelete protected until Legal can deal with it.
Whoah... this is suppression of legitimate interest by admin. This has not been resolved. GDPR does apply to US companies who collect information about EU Citizens.
https://gdpr.eu/compliance-checklist-us-companies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.182 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's my understanding that GDPR does not apply to uses in articles with the purpose of providing commentary about the person in question, in a similar way to how fair use applies when copyright material may be used to provide commentary on it, right? I know this is a troll thread, but that's my legitimate curiosity. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yup, that's right. GDPR does not apply to journalism such as that article. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)