Nestek

Discussion with Jytdog - Administrator 20180517

Notes for reference:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Edit_summary_dos_and_don'ts

Questions on interaction:

• Does this interaction count as incivility? I am sure that profanity post in edit summary is a violation of the civility requirements of Wikipedia - a small matter but I need to remember that these comments are permanent and I don't want such recorded against me - this would be an easy habit to slip into as familiarity breeds contempt - something to watch for on History pages as well and perhaps call editors out on.
• As a new user to Wikipedia I found this interaction disturbing - from my perspective I still don't know what I did to have an Administrator ask these sort of questions, indicate that I was lying, demand a simple explanation and then when that explanation was given for the Administrator to simple say "I have nothing more to say" without any explanation or apology - is this an acceptable interaction especially with new editors?
• Should I seek to pursue this? and if so where and how do I go about doing so? also is this really worth pursuing or is this a case of wasted time along with a bruised ego and to pursue it would be fruitless?

My Summary:

• I feel like a cop has pulled me over, demanded I get out of the car at gunpoint, searched me and simply walked off without any explanation
• Currently feel like packing this whole thing in, came here to learn and do some good but didn't expect to have to deal with this kind of intimidation but that would not gain anybody anything.
• I will continue to give this a go and see if this is an aberration in the Wikipedia culture or if this is endemic - might make an interesting article to purse at some stage.

Actual Interaction:

Would you please disclose if you are editing under any other accounts? Please be aware that if you are using alternative accounts deceptively, both will be indefinitely blocked under the WP:SOCK policy. If you were unaware that this is not OK, the situation can be resolved by disclosing and using only one in the future. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Greetings - nope no alternative accounts don't have time for such games, first created an account back in 2017 to add some details to a HEMA page and then about a month ago decided to properly earn how to Edit and have been working on a few projects since then including David Ames and Australian Researcher and David Suhor an American Church and state separation activist. Do yuo have soem concern with what I have been doing or the quality of the materials I have been posting? Nestek (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: So why the question and why are you saying I could be banned? What have I done? I certainly don't want to cause issues so if I did something I need to know so that I can make sure I don't do it again - I am new so any guidance in this matter is appreciated. Nestek (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that you should be banned. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It does appear that this account is coordinating with the Rap Sheet Mike account. Would you please explain that? Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I am not sure who Rap Sheet Mike is but you posted a link to his/her sand box (see below) which has some good information am not sure why you chose to undo it but again am new so not sure. I have taken a copy of this and put it a sandbox so I can go through it and update information back into the electromagnetic page where I see perceived lacks - is this not what we are supposed to do as editors or is there a mechanism for saying that I shouldn't be working on particular pages - is there a register? If so where do I find it? Nothing was mentioned when I went through the Wikipedia Adventure? - again thanksNestek (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Reference on Electromagnetic Page 21:17, 16 May 2018‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,640 bytes) (+3,172)‎ . . (→‎Effectiveness: add content COPIED from this diff which in turn was COPIED from sandbox, which had been copied from here diff. made refs in-line per current ref style) (undo | thank)

What brought you to that page? I am starting to sharply disbelieve you. Please give a simple, clear explanation for the coordination between this account and that one. Please answer simply and directly. You still have the opportunity to make sense of this. Please consider carefully before answering. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Wow ok was not expecting to be called a liar when I was asking for help - clear explanation - 1. Am looking to study Information Systems through Charles Sturt university with a focus on fake news 2. Decided to learn how to edit Wikipedia and look at how Wikipedia indexes, updates and mages large information sources. 3. Have an interest in science and tech - I like Prof Ames work and didn;t like the way his page was 4. I decide to cut myteeth by rewriting his page. 5. Came across electromagnetic therapy when researching David Ames and thought I would like to have a deeper look. 6. For the past month I have been looking at the history of all pages I visit and was surprised to see the term "disgusting dogshit spam" on the history page and thought perhaps this was someone defacing the page. 7. had a look through all the edits since start of 2018 and there was the link you posted to a sandbox 8. Now finding I have defend myself and I am not sure why 04:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A more welcoming welcome

Hi Nestek.

A belated friendly welcome!

I came here to offer some comment re the goings on at David Ames (researcher), and found the above too!

Does the above count as incivility.. If I understand the context properly and have seen everything you may be referring to, then I cannot see anything that is specifically incivil. However, Jytog seems to have been very unnecessarily aggressive and certainly unconstructive and unhelpful.

..found this disturbing.. I do too. No, I would suggest it was not an acceptable interaction by an administrator (unless you had been warned peviously) or any editor.

..pursue this.. I would suggest not on this one instance. Take a deep breath and move on. There is so much to do in Wikipedia that there is no point in wasting time on one interaction with a non constructive fellow editor. However, if they start to stalk you, ie, follow you through your past or future edits in a similar agressive manner rather than a collaborative constructive manner then yes I would consider taking it to WP:ANI or such.

..pulled me over.. Yes. Jytog has been banned for their bahviour before, and non trival bans too. Wikipedians are supposed to assume good faith. It seems Jytog believes this too, but I do not see it on this occasion. Jytog also accepts they get it wrong sometimes, and apologises. You never know, you might still get an apology.

..packing it in.. Yep, but they are not worth it. We need good editors, and you were starting off in the correct direction with David Ames (researcher), so please stay. (See my comments still come on that article's talk page.)

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aoziwe: Thanks for the greeting and appreciate your words of advice. I had pretty much come to the same conclusion but wrote up the interaction is such a fashion so that I can go back and reflect on it and remind me down the track of how to work with other editors (and if required an open journal for dispute resolution). I wouldn't characterise it as stalking yet but he has made substantial edits to the David Ames page as well as appeared and made minor edits on the David Suhor page so it does feel as though he is keeping an eye on me - lol don't know whether to be flattered or offended. Have been following some of the discussions with interest on ANI and if you don;t mind will come to you for advice if I hit a point where i think action is required and use you as a neutral sounding board? Look forward to seeing your thought's on David Ames' page - Cheers 11:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I avoid any conflicts as best I can so do not have a lot of experience with such, but will help if I can. Be flattered - an editor with 150k edits to their account is interested in what you are doing! Aoziwe (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Most editors in Wikipedia are not like the above at all. The one below is a good counter example of the above. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Aoziwe Thanks - and is more what I expected. Appreciate when someone points out a mistake so I can fix it up. Nestek (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Red links are not broken

I notice you removed a few wiki-links recently with the comment "Removed broken links". Just in case you're not aware red links are not necessarily "broken" - they could be there deliberately to indicate that an article should exist but hasn't yet been created. See WP:Red link for details.

Of course some red links really are "broken", e.g. because someone has spelt or capitalised a name incorrectly - i.e. the article does actually exist, just with a different name - in which case ideally the link should be fixed rather than removed.

Without explicitly checking I don't know whether any of the links you removed should have been removed or should have stayed or been fixed, but at least you should we aware of why red links might exist. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou Mitch Ames - appreciate the heads up - yes I was under a false assumption about the red links - in each case I attempted to repair the link but when there was no obvious page I removed them - I will need to go back and review these and revert a number of these. Cheers Nestek (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Mitch Ames an update - I have been back through and reverted all the red links in the pages I have edited over the past couple of days. Cheers Nestek (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page editing

I noticed in this edit that you removed some items from a list you had posted earlier. If you had done this immediately, before anyone else had responded, it would have been okay. But after a response, it's generally necessary to be more careful in editing our own or someone else's posting. A better way to have handled this would be to apply a template like {{done}} or {{not done}} or to strike out the text with <s>strikeout</s> markup. It's a small thing, and a curious person could go back into the page history and get a better idea of what was done, but it's best to not disappear things. More details at WP:REDACT. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Thanks for the heads up - I created the list on the talk page as a list of things to do and was removing them as they were being carried out to remove clutter - I will revert - cheers Nestek (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: have had a look and there have been edits to the age since I removed these bullet points - I will leave it as is and in future ensure the use of strikeouts instead. cheers Nestek (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, what's done is done. I agree that there's no need to revert anything at this point. Keep up the good work on pages like that one. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)