User2083146168 (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
→American politics DS notification: new section Tag: contentious topics alert |
||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
:: Your caution against "''the appearance of canvassing''", being based on nothing more than [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=925793358&diffmode=source appearances], borders on [[WP:AOBF]] and as such I'd advise you to take a break from stalking my user page or my activity on Wikipedia. —[[User:Sridc|<font color="#0066cc">'''''Srid'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sridc|<font color="#6600cc"><span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span></font>]]</sup> 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC) |
:: Your caution against "''the appearance of canvassing''", being based on nothing more than [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=925793358&diffmode=source appearances], borders on [[WP:AOBF]] and as such I'd advise you to take a break from stalking my user page or my activity on Wikipedia. —[[User:Sridc|<font color="#0066cc">'''''Srid'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sridc|<font color="#6600cc"><span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span></font>]]</sup> 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
== American politics DS notification == |
|||
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.'' |
|||
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic. |
|||
For additional information, please see the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2|here]]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
|||
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> This is just a standard notification for editors who are editing a lot of articles that touch on American politics, so they know the topic-area specific rules. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:11, 14 November 2019
Welcome!
Hello, Sridc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Red meat
Your edits to Red meat have been removed. The New York Times source was a good one, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we do not report on breaking events. In the event, the very next day, the conclusions of this academic paper were called into question by the New York Times in a second story, that pointed out that the author has ties to the meat industry. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
COI/N
I have opened a case on WP:COI/N regarding your editing of Call-out culture. I would suggest if you have any conflict of interest to disclose you should do so. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm assuming this serves as notice for the ip address that you previously edited from also cited on the case. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- For posterity: there was no COI on my part, nor is there any evidence of it. Talk:Call-out_culture#Haidt's_book - Sridc (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
EASTER EGGS
Hey mate, sorry to be reverting all these wikilinks you've added. We don't wikilink things that are generally known by all, in a common knowledge sense MOS:OVERLINK. Also, wikilinks should match the wording of the page, or very close WP:EASTEREGG. Hope that helps. Happy editing. Bacondrum (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:3RR violation on Call-out culture
This edit on Call-out culture violates the WP:3RR (since you removed sources from the first sentence that were under dispute, and also replaced the disputed text I restore, again reverting me.) Remember, the WP:3RR covers undoing editors edits even in part; taking a disputed block of text and moving it elsewhere in the article qualifies as such. Please self-revert. --Aquillion (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Aquillion - I don't see it as undoing edits in part. Undoing your edits would mean, strictly, completely removing those two sources. However that's now what my edit did; it simply moved the two sources under the Description section. The rest of the edit is new information (the new lede) which too doesn't count as a revert. Besides, I explained the edit in Talk:Call-out_culture#The_two_feminist_sources. In regards to "taking a disputed block of text and moving it elsewhere in the article qualifies as such." I'd simply claim an exception, under reasonable grounds. - Sridc (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless of how you feel about moving the sources, you still removed several key parts of the first sentence of the lead (eg. removing
perceived to be problematic
, a clear part under dispute and therefore a clear revert); however, looking over the history, it looks like you've reverted at least six (!) times on the page in the last 24 hours, so I went ahead and filed a report. --Aquillion (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless of how you feel about moving the sources, you still removed several key parts of the first sentence of the lead (eg. removing
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:Sridc reported by User:Aquillion (Result: ). Thank you. Aquillion (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
previous ANI discussion
So that you are aware of some of the relevant history, this previous ANI discussion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Requesting_a_subject-matter_ban_for_user_Bacondrum_on_the_Call-out_Culture_article )is highly informative about some of the patterns of abuse that have affected the Callout Culture article. If you read this discussion you’ll see the misrepresentations, the misstatements about Wikipedia policy, the talking in circles, the refusal to answer well-meaning questions from impartial editors, the attempts to justify a pattern of ideologically motivated edits that (in my view) amount to vandalism. This has nothing to do with your current mediation process, I just think it’s worth reading this, if you haven’t already, to get a sense of the history, since you’ve become very involved in editing the Callout Culture article. This user has, in a fairly short period of time, been subject of numerous ANI discussions because their editing history is so abusive and intransigent. DeRossitt (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- (I posted this response under your comment on my page but I suppose I should have posted it here, so here it is:)
- Speaking only for myself, I am not interested enough in the Callout Culture article to devote time to fighting it out over edits. I’d rather be working on topics I’m really interested in. However, I thought the pre-Bacondrum article was far better than what it became after Bacondrum’s edits. And I found Bacondrum’s habits to be incredibly grating — giving the impression of barking orders at people along the lines of “we’ve got to whip this article into shape,” completely ignoring WP:NORUSH. This is someone who gave the impression of trying to WP:OWN the article and essentially holding the article hostage with an inexhaustible willingness to outlast anyone in an edit war (resulting, as you know, in multiple bans for violating 3RR). And so much of the discussion was over silliness like whether Bromwich was off limits for citation because he had previously written on fashion. It was just a very unrewarding process because we were arguing with someone who seemed incapable of discerning nuance or understanding Wikipedia policy, so the discussions would get nowhere. So I appreciate your kind encouragement to edit the article but my sole involvement has been to object to Bacondrum’s abusive and alienating editing which continues to evade Wikipedia governance. Bacondrum will surely consider that a “personal attack” but the truth isn’t an attack, it’s just the truth—and the multiple, increasingly lengthy bans Bacondrum has received show that administrators agree with me that Bacondrum’s conduct has been abusive, and I don’t think one can be faulted for stating the obvious. DeRossitt (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Good job pursuing consensus
I’ve looked at the Callout Culture Talk page and your dedication to pursuing consensus is admirable and laudable. You are doing far more to be inclusive in that article than any other single member that I can recall. As you are seeing, however, you will be faced with absolute intransigence about those changes. DeRossitt (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
You may have missed this discussion
I’m on my phone so it’s hard to keep all the Bacondrum-related ANI discussions straight, but this discussion (while not resulting in sanctions as far as I can tell) details some problematic behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#User:Bacondrum
Also there is Bacondrum’s block log which may contain something you missed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABacondrum
DeRossitt (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
keep in mind
That an ANI discussion, if not received favorably by admins, can result in a “Boomerang” with sanctions imposed on the original poster. I worry that you haven’t collected enough of a record for some of these ANI postings you’ve done. Not saying I disagree with you at all. I’m no expert, just wanted you to be aware of that. Feel free to drop me an email. DeRossitt (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- email me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/DeRossitt
Reply from ANI thread
I decided to leave this here since while it may benefit other partipants of the ANI thread, it's also a lot of personal advice and I don't think it's that important for others. Also while I don't think anything is likely to happen from the ANI, it's probably fairest if I avoid detracting from it too much with lengthy replies.
By second ANI I did not mean the 2nd ANI you linked. I meant that IIRC this is the third ANI you've opened in as many days. The first one AFAIK you intended to post to ANI so you cannot say it was not intended as an ANI complaint. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022#Stalking and ad hominem [1] The second one, you intended to post elsewhere, I think to DRN, but it wasn't something that would ever be handled at DRN or nearly anywhere else since it was a complaint about another editor. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022#User:Bacondrum's behavioral roadblock [2]. In other words, the fact you didn't intend to post it to ANI doesn't change the fact it was basically an attempt get the same editor sanctioned and so is only likely to be dealt with at ANI (or a few other limited places depending on the circumstances).
This is now your third attempt in about 4 days. You should consider The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Even if you really thought there was a wolf the other 2 times you tried, no one saw any real evidence of a wolf. Trying a third time in 4 days means people aren't really inclined to look at your evidence. So even if you have spectacular evidence of a wolf this time, maybe no one will know.
You also should consider that even if there are problems with an editor's editing that would require intervention, often a new editor is poorly placed to bring the complaint because you don't understand well what's the sort of behaviour that is enough of a problem to warrant it. (And in fact a quick read of the first part of your ANI comment without checking the diffs makes me think that if there is significant evidence, a lot of what you're showing is not that.)
To give one specific example, deleting significant amounts of content is sometimes justified. It depends on the content, the reasons, the sourcing etc and their relation to our policies and guidelines. You say "no consensus" but I look at the article talk page and archive and do not see any significant discussion which would clearly demonstrate one way or the other. So it doesn't seem there is consensus against the changes. While sometimes an editor should get consensus before making significant changes, it can be complicated what to do depending on the circumstances. And so it's difficult to assume apriori that an editor is editing inappropriately just because they made these deletions. Ultimately if some editor did disagree with the changes, they needed to discuss and try to reach consensus on restoring the deletions or WP:Silence may come in to play. In other words, something which to you is so obviously a problem, is not to me. To be clear, I'm not saying it was fine, rather I cannot conclude one way or another without looking a lot into what happened.
Also you talk about how you've tried a lot on the talk page. When I visit the talk page I see a lot of new threads opened by you. While this isn't necessarily wrong, and it's good that you're using the talk page, it can also be a case of too much of a good thing. Remember that we're all volunteers, and while it's fine that you're interested in the article and keen to improve it, sometimes especially when you're new and so may not understand stuff well, it's best to take things slow. Editors may not want to respond to 10 different threads in 10 days on different issues. If you find yourself with nothing to do while waiting for others to respond, consider working on some other article hopefully one less contentious.
Also, while I see one thread opened over a month ago, most of the other threads seem to very new, in fact about 7 days old seems to be the next. It's somewhat difficult for me to believe you have sufficient evidence that Bacondrum has been a 'roadblock' etc as you keep saying when you've only given the discussion 7 days on most of the issue. And in fact I think it's even more recent that someone other than you and Bacondrum has gotten involved in a number of them.
As I said in my earlier replies, while I'm not saying Bacondrum has been perfect, IMO you are going to need to work with them no matter you disagreements with some of what they've said and done.
Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
FYI twitter, pronouns
Having seen your post on the village pump, I thought I'd answer you here, since that is the wrong forum. The answer to your question is simple - no one ever proposed it. There is no discussion in the Twitter talk archive of pronoun related content, nor are there any edit summaries indicating attempts to add or remove such content. It seems to be something that simply no one ever tried to add to the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. So, as it stands right now, it is a matter of someone being WP:BOLD to make that edit. —Srid🍁 02:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
Hi Sridc! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Moving this to the right place since you, quite rightly, removed it from your user page.
- I would caution you against the appearance of canvassing. You've been walking a very fine line here, and you're new to Wikipedia so allowances have been made. But I think your best choice at this juncture would be to step away from the Call-out culture article and learn more about Wikipedia's norms in less fraught areas. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Your caution against "the appearance of canvassing", being based on nothing more than appearances, borders on WP:AOBF and as such I'd advise you to take a break from stalking my user page or my activity on Wikipedia. —Srid🍁 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
American politics DS notification
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33 This is just a standard notification for editors who are editing a lot of articles that touch on American politics, so they know the topic-area specific rules. --Aquillion (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)