Contents
Your closing of an AE appeal premised upon ""People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas. "
You recently closed an AE Appeal by myself regarding Electronic Cigarettes. Part of the rationale of the AE was given by EdJohnston as
"People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas. Up till now E-cig has been the only area he works in. So I'd make the topic ban from electronic cigarettes indefinite"
I would like to know where in Wikipedia this is delineated out as a rule, or something that should be enforced?? I do not believe it exists. Ironically Electronic Cigarettes are not even listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Current_areas_of_conflict
As you read in my Appeal EdJohnston put this out in TALK, and it was something that I had to respond to, if I were to be granted
AE is open to all, but it would be more effective to get proper discussions going here. Anyone who has been following the threads here for a week or more could have something useful to say. User:Mystery Wolff, per your talk page "..I want to make sure that I am on the same level playing field as everyone else". if you want to have a level playing field it might help if you would give us a hint of why you created your account on 19 November with apparently no prior Wikipedia edits but much knowledge of the arb case, just to edit regarding electronic cigarettes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain why I had to go through the process to explain I was not a sockpuppet in the talk pages? Can you explain why after repeated attempts to get EdJohnston to explain which edits deserved an indefinite Topic Ban, that it is he never responded. Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions Why is it that EdJohnston is devoid of that responsibility? Though it may be uncomfortable for any Admin to be critical of any other Admin, I need to get some answers, because of the ambiguity left by EJ constant and continuing refusals to explain his actions. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- @NuclearWarfare: I am going to go ahead and ask you to remove your closure of my Appeal. The discussion at ARCA is ongoing. At least one other editor who was involved with my request for an RfC, which was being done prior to the Topic Ban that is being appeal, has stated they wanted to comment on the Appeal. There are other editors like Doc James who is an editor of the section, which deals with the specific items of primary and secondary sourced information within MEDRS citations, and is a frequent editor of the articles, who may want to give their views, before the appeal is closed. Again as said in the Appeal itself prior to your closure, there is no time crunch to cross it off the list. Other editors may not be as frequently checking Wikipedia as you are. Please let me know, and if you are able to respond to the questions above also. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- I read your posts. A number of people have told you why your behavior has not been acceptable. I thought about trying to write out a whole thing as to why they are correct, but to be honest, if you haven't gotten it you just aren't going to . I am not going to be able to tell you anything that they haven't already. If any administrator wants to ask me to reopen the request I'm happy to but I'll be blunt: no one will. NW (Talk) 21:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare, the entire point has been what about my edits are a problem. I have not edit warred, though yes I have edited. If you could explain it, why wouldn't you? Shouldn't Admin's be able to explain their role, when asked? Why take action when your stance seems to be TLDR. You seem to be reviewing my objection to the AE, and the topic ban, rather than the conduct in question. Be as blunt as you want, but at least be decent enough to look at the edits in question, being part of a scorched earth policy is not what WP guideline suggest, and I don't think you judiciously used your admin authority well when pushing the button. You can not even explain your rush to close. You won't even explain my edits, that are being appealed, what part of them were at such issue. Why? Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ed's topic ban was to get you away from an area where you are confrontational, uncollaborative, and unwilling to understand where your edits flout key content policy regarding sourcing and appropriate weight. Literally no administrator reviewing your edits has been able to find any indication that you have changed on understanding that. I saw that you violated your topic ban by commenting at AE today. Please stop. Find a different topic area. If you haven't understood how your edits have violated the policies that were repeatedly pointed out to you at the original AE requests, then you aren't going to understand until you let time understand. NW (Talk) 23:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare, the entire point has been what about my edits are a problem. I have not edit warred, though yes I have edited. If you could explain it, why wouldn't you? Shouldn't Admin's be able to explain their role, when asked? Why take action when your stance seems to be TLDR. You seem to be reviewing my objection to the AE, and the topic ban, rather than the conduct in question. Be as blunt as you want, but at least be decent enough to look at the edits in question, being part of a scorched earth policy is not what WP guideline suggest, and I don't think you judiciously used your admin authority well when pushing the button. You can not even explain your rush to close. You won't even explain my edits, that are being appealed, what part of them were at such issue. Why? Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- I read your posts. A number of people have told you why your behavior has not been acceptable. I thought about trying to write out a whole thing as to why they are correct, but to be honest, if you haven't gotten it you just aren't going to . I am not going to be able to tell you anything that they haven't already. If any administrator wants to ask me to reopen the request I'm happy to but I'll be blunt: no one will. NW (Talk) 21:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare, you characteritzation of what you think EdJohnston did, is not reflected in the AE or what he said. While I believe that you took a very cursory examination of whether you thought EdJohnston was an involved editor, before you closed the appeal, I have very little confidence you did much else. You responses here really do show that also. The appeal had admins talking about EdJohnston's involvement or lack thereof, but did not speak to the rest of the appeal itself or specifically which edits of mine would give rise to how now you characterize them.
- My edits that were raised were concerning the removal of a single sentence where a one off primary source made claims that Smoke residues were similar to Vapor residues. Obviously the differences between the artificats created by combustion are far different. AlbinoFerret removed the study which was the follow-up to the one cited, which confirmed that Nicotine was not found to be any greater in the homes of non-users compared to vapers. That study was presented to the FDA at a workshop that has an available transcript which I was in the process of getting, in order to replace it. At the time of my TB, I was continuing a discussion in TALK about this, setting up a RFC with the help of Kingsindian, concerning MEDRS sourcing. I honestly do not believe you are going to say that in your review you were aware of any of these items. Correct.
- You claim there are a host of editors that have problems edits, when that again is not the case, as the AE did not have editors of the articles speaking to it beyond AlbinoFerret. As have learned since your closing of the Appeal, Albinoferret was to be topic banned, and a vote with many many editors had that as the outcome. Instead the admins let him stay, provided he topic ban himself. After which he came back and went to all the same practices. He opened 4 AEs on editors within 40 days. And went to Admins doing pre-work canvasing for those AE. The against CFCF, you will find that many of are the view that AlbinoFerret is gaming AE to get his POV in, and avoiding using TALK, or taking advantage of AEs to get his way in talk. The Admins left that editor in the mix, and they found me as I started to edit on Wikipedia.
- I don't view Wikipedia as some sort of Playstation game. Finding another area at the for the convenience of admins who don't want to review the cases, and be fast to nuke editors is a problem for every article. I have spent a lot of time putting in good edits, edits that remain, and have had other edits removed for stated agendas. You will notice that S Marshall, is unhappy with the construction of the article and has removed MEDRS sourced information because he wants to make the Wikipedia something for high-school students to read before the pick up an e-cig. He says it over and over, and has said it as recently as the AE you just referenced.
- A topic ban for editors who are actively using TALK to talk about edits, and not edit warring....is outrageous and unconscionable. Are you familiar with the learning's from the Stanford Prison Experiment? You are in the loop. As I said, you closed the Appeal before it could be heard full, it was rushed for not reason, and you certainly are evidencing a lack of familiarity with the nature of the appeal itself, including not knowing what the cause of the Topic Ban was. Nuclear Warfare and rush to push a button, has never been known to be wise or good thing, herein that error was made. Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 01:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Courcelles (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Block reason?
Hello! I think I was blocked by accident or mistake, since I don't edit anything, but I saw that before I request to be unblocked I'm supposed to ask and then understand why I was. It says that I was blocked for persistent vandalism, but I'm thinking there might be a mistake here since I haven't edited any pages that I can think of pretty much ever. Can you let me know what I'm meant to have done? Thanks very much--I appreciate it! --C 2/13/16 4:34pm 96.242.58.82 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi! The block happened about six years ago actually; the person who used to use your IP address has likely changed and you now have it. I've gone ahead and removed the block notice from your page. Please don't worry about it! NW (Talk) 22:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah! Got it. Thanks so much! Best, C.96.242.58.82 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Topic ban appeal
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding Arbitration enforcement action appeal. The thread is "[[Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Realskeptic|Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Realskeptic]]". Thank you. --Realskeptic (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Creating an article 'Josh Reaume' that was previously deleted by you
Hello There,
Wanted to inform you that I will be working on starting the article 'Josh Reaume' again. It was previously deleted in 2009 for a lack of sources. This will no longer be an issue.
Please let me know if you have any advice or comments regarding this.
Thanks!
- I would reread the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources pages carefully. If you're satisfied that he meets the minimum requirements, go ahead and create the article. NW (Talk) 10:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion at WP:AN
Why did you suddenly close this discussion ? It was not finished and I didn't even and I didn't even finish answering the new editors involved in this discussion. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Also note that unlike what I have seen on this page, I deserve to use AWB again. The issue was discussed twice following the disagreement. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion was open for several days and then closed, as is standard practice. Several administrators argued for removing access. I would suggest waiting several months and reapplying after demonstrating a history of editing collegially. NW (Talk) 23:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare, I've been using AWB for more than one year without receiving any negative comments about my changes. What I did by changing
[[Hot 100]]
into[[Billboard Hot 100|''Billboard'' Hot 100]]
is not controversial at all and I don't see why I should wait several months to use it again if it was clearly proved there was no abuse of this tool. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) - Also your statement is incorrect : only one admin doesn't want to see me using AWB again : Floquenbeam. Hasteur and Mendaliv, who answered the post, are NOT admins. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The only other admin involved in the discussion, Rich Farmbrough, explicitly said : "In the event that we agree that there was good reason to believe that these edits would not have been controversial, then that is no reason to prevent Synthwave from using AWB." It proves there's no reason to prevent me using a tool I use perfectly well, especially as two discussions (at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and Talk:Money (That's What I Want)), WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE all prove that I was properly using AWB. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- If my edits performed with AWB were actually incorrect, I would have been reverted by other editors and would have received negative comments. But it was not the case; nobody reverted me, nobody said it was incorrect to make these changes with AWB. I'm therefore asking to get access to AWB again for all this stupid "controversy" surrounding my actions. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please tell me what I'm supposed to do regarding what I previously said on your talk page ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare, I've been using AWB for more than one year without receiving any negative comments about my changes. What I did by changing