User talk:HaroldDunlop

September 2019

Hello, I'm KillerChihuahua. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. I strongly advise you to edit in another area of Wikipedia. If you continue on your current path, you may be indefinitely blocked from editing. Killer Chihuahua 14:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Japanese Mahjong, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Wikipedia is NOT a gaming how-to. Seriously. Stop editing long enough to read the WP:RULES. Killer Chihuahua 14:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Killer Chihuahua 14:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Your recent contributions at Japanese Mahjong appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Killer Chihuahua 14:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HaroldDunlop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am completely baffled on how easily you block someone out of Wikipedia as well as remove all his/her genuine contributions, considering you clearly don't have the expertise on the subjects in question (tabletop games) as none of your claims are explained properly. I was under the impression that user Praxidicae was being a 'bully', purely for the fact that I referred to the same source multiple times (yes, I did because this source adds extra value to all pages edited). By rolling back my contributions he did not only erase my (maybe not adhering the guidelines according to you?) genuine contributions, he also removed factual and/or mark-up fixes. By no means did I have any intention of starting an 'edit war' by reverting his rollback (I believed I was contributing positively and I was not aware of the requirement to first reach out to him on his talk page). I feel like this is taken out of proportion to the extreme. On the accusation of spam or promotion, none of you substantiates WHY my contributions are spam or promotions, the only thing you do is rehash and copy standard guidelines on my talk page. I have no incentive to promote anything nor advertise. What in the world do I have to advertise? I am here to add value for people who want to read more in-depth about certain tabletop games, and yes I regularly refer to the same source for this as this source as I think highly of it. It adds value in terms of specific strategies for the games, which none of the other sources properly do in my opinion. I understand it might LOOK like promotion to you, but that was and never will be my intention. I am aware that most of you have a strong moral compass, but sometimes you can take things too far. HaroldDunlop (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've stated you're baffled, which indicates you're not clear on why you were blocked. I suggest you read up on the linked policies, consider them, and request unblock once you're able to articulate how you ran afoul of them, and how you plan to approach editing in the future. I also suggest you select an area of Wikipedia other than gaming for a while, to learn the ropes without running afoul of even the appearance of site promotion. Killer Chihuahua 15:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Email

Hi, I got a notice that you emailed me, but I cannot access my email right now - if it's something you don't mind saying in public, would you be so kind as to post it here? I will watch and respond here, thanks! Killer Chihuahua 16:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chihuaha, no problem.

You mentioned: "request unblock once you're able to articulate how you ran afoul of them."

First of all, I have read the guidelines, and I don't think I actually have ran afoul of them. If you and the other editor claim it is spam, I think it is appropriate that you as administrator clarify WHY it is. It is too simple to just refer me to the guidelines, as the guidelines leave room for discussion.

If it is clear according to you that this is spam, then please enlighten me on why it actually is. In this case, please link my specific actions to the claim in the guidelines that make it crystal clear that it is spam. In my opinion that is very hard to determine here.

Several questions for you:

How is the difference between spam/advertising and "legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia" determined?
And something that goes hand-in-hand with that: what makes it so that my contributions are not helping to build the encyclopedia?
Isn't it too radical to directly flag something as spam due to repeated use of the same source, if the source in question actually provides factual info to the reader not to be found on the page before? Isn't that "helping to build the encyclopedia?"
Why are other modifications that have nothing to do with external sources rolled back as well, while they add factual info not yet mentioned in the article? Same goes for fixing improper use of brackets and spaces.

Furthermore, you initially issued me a warning. The reverts I made of Praxidicae's rollback (with good intention but also with ignorance of this function), were done before or during your warning. Either way, I have not seen the warning before I made these reverts. However, it appears the reverts where the final push that got my account blocked, which seems somewhat unfair. Just needed to clarify that.

Also, I would love to get a third and/or fourth administrator's opinion involved here.

Thank you for your time.

User:HaroldDunlop —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, September 18, 2019‎

Every single one of your edits added a link to https://www.coololdgames.com. Could you please explain the nature of your relationship to this website? Thank you. – bradv🍁 20:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brad,

I certainly can. The articles on Cool Old Games are written by more brother Paul, who I rate very highly when it comes to the finer details of classic tabletop games. My brother has been playing competitively for over 25 years. I have been playing myself for some years as well, but it won't compare to him.

In my free time I obviously like to read up on certain games here and there, see what others (or Wikipedia in this case) have to say. As for Wikipedia, whenever I felt that a page about a game was missing specific information, or missing external sources that go in a bit deeper on the claims made regarding the 'game-play' side of things, and where I knew my brother did cover these missing aspects correctly, I referred to his work.

I do understand the suspicions here, but adding multiple reference to the same source does not necessarily always have to mean spam. Especially if the sources are actually adding value in the form of information not available on the page before.

Thanks for looking into this.

User:HaroldDunlop

then I suggest you read WP:COI. Even if your brother's site were a highly rated, notable site, you shouldn't be the one to add links to it. Killer Chihuahua 20:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chihuahua,

"If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts." Have my edits caused disruption, if so, why exactly?

Furthermore, "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive." This is not even regarding content I have personally written. Besides that, it is very relevant. Also what is considered "within reason" or "excessive?"

Your claim that I should not have added links to it regardless is just blatantly wrong according to WP:COI.

User:HaroldDunlop

I suggest to you that several editors felt your additions were excessive, promotional, and did not add value to the encyclopedia. Another page you should read is WP:SPA. Are you here for any other reason than to add this site? Because that's the heart of COI; that you're an SPA for adding (hence promoting) your brother's site.

In your responses, do please bear in mind that I didn't block you, and would not, in fact, have chosen to block you without attempting this discussion prior to blocking. Wikilawyering with me is not helping you at all. I'm spending my time trying to explain where you ran afoul of the rules; that such errors were not egregious, or were arguably innocent and well-intentioned, is unhelpful at this time. You're blocked. I'm explaining why. Killer Chihuahua 23:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua,

I get the idea that the editor in question (Praxidicae) saw multiple references to the same source and immediately linked that to spam. He initiated immediate rollback for all my contributions, contributions that include significantly more than just an outside reference. In such a short time-span it is highly unlikely that he could properly assess the value of the edits overall. As he also rolled back obvious mark-up errors.

Besides that, still no reasons given by anyone as to why exactly my edits did not add any value to the encyclopedia. I have explained several times why I think they did in fact add value and were relevant, still no substantiated counter-argument from anyone. Which also makes me question how objective/neutral you actually looked into the edits. This feels a lot like you seeing multiple references to the same source and having an immediate notion of 'wrong.' Which is understandable from your side as I can assume there is loads of actual promotion cases that you deal with on a daily. However, without proper argumentation it is too easy to just state that I 'ran afoul of the rules.'

On another note, I do make other changes as well. E.g. adding additional content, as well as fixing misplaced symbols and/or tidying up the 'code'. So, yes I am here to improve the encyclopedia and not to promote (no SPA). I want to people to be able to read the right information and learn more about the subjects in question.

I am aware that you did not block me, however you were the one that escalated this by raising the 'edit war', which is what had me blocked in the end. Also, you are the only one responding to a certain (for me still unsatisfactory) degree.

All in all, as of now it seems there are two editors who feel like my edits did not add any value: Praxidicae and You. Neither of you gave satisfactory arguments besides pointing at guidelines that leave room for discussion.

I am hoping to get some more views of User:Bradv and User:Widr, or any other neutral admin for that matter.

Thanks User:HaroldDunlop

Well, Prax and I disagree fairly strongly on what constitutes vandalism. But Prax reported you, she did not block you. Widr blocked you, and (I am guessing here!) he might feel that his block rationale covers the situation. He would not have blocked you unless he agreed, at least at a general level, with Prax's view of your edits.

My posts here have been attempts to explain how that rationale might apply to your edits. You seem to feel I'm arguing for this view; I'm not. I've already told you I would not have blocked you. I'm telling you that view is why you're blocked. If you can't wrap your brain around that, you're likely to remain blocked. Killer Chihuahua 01:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the blocking admin

Repeating what KillerChihuahua told you above, I am the admin responsible of blocking your account, and the reasons are indeed clearly stated in the template above. I won't stand in the way if you can convince another admin to unblock you, but based on the merits of your edits so far, I don't think that's likely to happen. This is all I'm going to say here. Widr (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Widr and User:KillerChichuaha

Again, an answer solely pointing at the guidelines. Again, still no substantiated counter-argument from anyone why the specific edits in question didn't add value. Again, I tell you, the guidelines leave room for discussion, as in, what adds value and what doesn't. I ask you again, could you please give me these arguments?

Being an admin does not mean instantly blocking someone and solely pointing at the guidelines as an explanation. That is too simple. There are nuances, it is not that black and white, especially in this case. Blocking and pointing at the guidelines, or not bothering to use own rationale to explain the exact reason as to why the edits don't help build the encyclopedia? Clearly being in a position of authority (admin), makes you think your word (even if no clear and substantive answer), supersedes above everything else. In reality, it does indeed supersede, and that is what you know very well, and at the same time are abusing.

I know, what you would like to hear is me agreeing with you and apologizing. Of course, that feeds the authority-complex. But I don't agree, and you clearly feel too good to counter my arguments on why I think my edits added value.

Do with this as you wish, put you are not making Wikipedia a better place. You are abusing your authority by policing without rationalizing nor genuinely educating.

And on a side note, concluding from your answers it seems all of you three happen to know each other. COI maybe? "Unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing?"

User:Bradv I would very much also like to hear your neutral point of view. Not just pointing at the guidelines but genuinely link my edits to the specific paragraphs in the guidelines, as well as substantiating why I 'ran afoul' of them and, especially, why did not any extra value to the encyclopedia.

Thank you.

You've admitted above that you are linking to your brother's website. Not only is this is an undisclosed conflict of interest, but it falls afoul of our policies against promotional edits, and the links themselves constitute citation spam. As this appears to be your only purpose, I cannot endorse an unblock without a much stronger commitment from you that you understand what you did wrong and can explain what you'll do differently going forward. – bradv🍁 13:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bradv. So far, you've had several editors and admins try to explain where you erred, and your only response has been to argue. Has it occurred to you that your understanding of policy may be flawed? That far more experienced editors probably understand how to edit here successfully? Killer Chihuahua 20:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]