User talk:WinstonSmith01984

Welcome!

Hello, WinstonSmith01984, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
How to add those all-important references
Simplified Manual of Style
The Signpost, our newspaper.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sm8900 (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Sm8900 (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.

O3000 (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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.

O3000 (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note once you have been undone (reverted) it is down to you to make a case at talk page, not to edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Mr Slater here was the one who reverted my addition (leading to my accusation of vandalism) and so I opened a section on the Talk page to discuss. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I suggest you read wp:vandal. What was done was not vandalism, and making unfounded accusation is against the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

removing referenced content and providing no explanation is vandalism per the WP definition. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, This is now a warning. Do not call content disputes vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misusing the term vandalism is casting aspersions. Don't use the word unless an edit is malicious in nature. O3000 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read wp:brd, wp:revert and wp:editwar. Once someone reverts you you are not supposed to revert them until you have consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the advice others are giving you -- if you continue to edit-war, you'll end up blocked and your text almost certainly won't be added to the article. I strongly suggest that you self-revert your latest addition. --JBL (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise you should withdraw your section at WP:ANI. --JBL (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Your recent editing history at National Rifle Association shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; 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 edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from National Rifle Association

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week from certain areas of the encyclopedia for violating the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 15:31, 14 March 2020 (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).

WinstonSmith01984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Requesting unblock from NRA article to engage in Talk and gain consensus. I disagree with the block because I have actually tried to engage constructively on the talk page but only encountered belligerence. Was unaware of any 3 edit limit, sorry. No reasonable explanation was provided for removal of the content I added and it certainly looked like vandalism, or at the very least, disruptive editing by users who disagreed with my addition and were themselves unwilling to engage in the talk page until I added it. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are only blocked from the article, and you haven't addressed your behavior - unblock requests blaming others will not be considered. Acroterion (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2020 (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.

Your block is only of the article itself. There is nothing stopping you using the talk page to reach consensus. I suggest you start with using the talk page to reach consensus before you bother to consider an appeal (i.e. withdraw this one) since frankly, your history suggest it's better if you are not editing the article at this time. Note that using the talk page to reach consensus means you should be able to explain why you feel your proposed change is an improvement rather than just demand others tell you why they feel your change is not an improvement or tell others how wrong they were to revert you. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify what "demands" I have made?

The 3RR violation is accepted, but the block is in my view disproportionate in the circumstances. My addition to the article which was reverted, is already gaining consensus on the Talk page, which I think should call into question the accusations of an 'edit war' made against me. I have done everything to adhere to policy and indicated my respect for Wikipedia's rules, have followed BRD in this instance and even pledged to remain civil.

This block is in my view, unwarranted and disproportionate, as I was not even afforded the time to read the 3RR page before receiving the block. In addition, unfounded claims of personal attacks were made against me, which is in my view nothing other than an attempt to sully my reputation by an aggrieved editor. My focus is on content and it's disappointing to be drawn into dispute like this. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PA

Please read wp:npa, please stop now. You have had one block already because you did not listen (and yes you were told about edit warring before your 4 revert). Constrictive engagement is not attacking other users.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can you please clarify where and when the personal attack was? I don't recall attacking anyone or even so-much as indulging in ad hominem... WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3RR vio requires a 3RR warning

Not sure about this, El C. WinstonSmith01984 is a new user, who credibly states in their unblock request that they weren't aware of the 3RR rule. Indeed, once they were warned about it by Diannaa, they made no more reverts. Where in your opinion were they told about it before, Slatersteven? It's wrong to call content disagreement "vandalism", but new users will typically do that, as of course you know, El C. I'm surprised none of the people who reverted WinstonSmith or were reverted by them took the trouble to give a proper 3RR warning, instead of talking obscurely about "edit warring" in edit summaries and elsewhere. Don't bite the newbies, people. Bishonen | tålk 16:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Acroterion and I practically crossed, so I'm pinging them also. Bishonen | tålk 16:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Err I told them about edit warring (with a link) where [[1]], they made their 4th revert here [[2]] 5 minutes latter. Also (as you see above) they are still making PA's and not listening.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Bishonen, Slatersteven linked WP:EW to them here. I don't think a partial block is that bitey under these circumstances. Being new is not a license for a free-for-all, I'm sorry. El_C 16:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SS linked to wp:brd, wp:revert and wp:editwar in a warning that was too vague and obscure for a newbie, as I've just said at WP:ANEW. Why not use the template we have, which surely all experienced users know about? And what PAs are those, exactly? Bishonen | tålk 16:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I think newcomers are capable of clicking links just fine, though I agree that {{uw-3rr}} template is preferable. El_C 16:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other users of being revisionists (and accusing users of edit warring, without real casue) [[3]] rather then (As they were asked to do to get unblocked) making a valid case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I work with feedback, the haste with which my addition was removed was a bit dodgy that's all. There is still no explanation as to why my addition was removed, other than a claim of 'undue' - but of course I believe it is not undue, and in seeking clarification as to why it was undue I was basically berated. More than happy to comply and adhere to rules (sorry there's just a lot of them!) :-) WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were asked not to make accusation of vandalism. You struck out straight away with this [[4]], that was not constructive, and your reaction was to dig in. This is why you stated getting warnings.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, why did you revert my edit in the first place? I added a minor snippet which was a simple matter-of-fact. Why remove such facts from Wikipedia? You sir, are who started this 'reversion war', I'm certainly guilty of being a newbie but I can learn and won't be making dodgy reverts again, and especially not dodgy reverts like the one you did which started all this. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "don't edit war" and "don't insult others" aren't that complicated. These were not your first edits anyway, and you accused the other editor of vandalism almost immediately. The thing to do here is not to argue why your edit was right or wrong, since that is completely uninteresting; the problem was your editing related to that content. So read those rules that were linked, and then come back and explain how you will abide by them. I would not unblock you until I heard about that. (Slatersteven, we got it--thanks. We're talking about unblocking: leave it to the admins.) Drmies (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but, where and when did I insult anyone? It did look a lot like vandalism because no reason was provided for the revert other than this 'undue' thing. This is the core of the issue. But Mr Slater here has not explained how or why my edit was undue. If I was offered a reason I certainly would not have assumed it to be vandalism. If someone is prepared to raise UNDUE they should be prepared to explain how and why it is undue... WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WinstonSmith01984. We've never interacted before so I hope you'll see this as a good-faith message from someone outside this current dispute. Also I'm no fan of the NRA, so there's that, too.

Anyways, "Vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, which is deliberate and malicious damage to the encyclopedia. It can include adding obscenities and jokes but also removing policy-compliant content. However, good-faith efforts from editors, even if those efforts are considered disruptive or against consensus, are never considered vandalism. You can read WP:VAND for more about that.

The phrase "personal attacks" also has other meanings on Wikipedia. It means abusive comments, but it also means things like (a) calling good-faith edits "vandalism", or calling that editor a "vandal", and (b) making accusations without evidence (preferably in the form of a WP:DIFF). There's more about that policy at WP:NPA.

So right now the issue is that you've been calling Slatersteven's editing vandalism, even though they're not, and you're doing so without evidence. That's why everyone is asking you to stop your personal attacks.

My best advice going forward is to follow WP:BRD: if you make an edit and it stays, great. If it doesn't, then go right to the Talk page and start a discussion. It would be a show of good faith if you pledged to discuss in the future rather than edit warring, and also to unequivocally retract your statements about Slatersteven being a vandal. That will likely go a long ways towards getting your partial block removed, though I'm no admin and it's not up to me.

And finally, a note about WP:UNDUE: in our articles, we try to balance viewpoints proportionally to their prominence in reliable sources. If 100 sources make a specific claim and 50 sources make another claim, we'll give more weight to the claim made by 100 sources. That "weight" can mean a number of things, like how many words or sentences we devote to summarizing those sources, or where it gets placed in the article. Now weight can also mean that we exclude claims made by a single or very few sources. The rationale is that, if this fact were important, then surely more sources would be covering it. But here's the really important part: weight is balanced around available sources, not sources currently in the article. Editors may decide that citing those 100 sources at the end of a sentence would be ridiculous, and they may only choose the best source. If a sourced statement is removed as UNDUE, my best advice would be to (a) look for other sources making that exact claim, and (b) look for other sources making adjacent claims. In this example, it comes down to balancing how many sources talk about the NRA supporting or opposing the Arms Trade Treaty, Canadian gun registry, Brazilian gun rights, Australian gun laws, and One Nation. If there are many sources talking about all of them—including One Nation—then that's something you should bring up at the Talk page. But if it's just the one source that mentions One Nation and multiple sources discussing the others, then your claim is UNDUE.

I'm sorry this message was so long, but I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed, and thank you for taking the time; it's a great help and I'll take the time to read policy more. I do pledge to discuss these issues beforehand in future and remain civil at all times. Airing my suspicion of bias was not something I did flippantly or without reason, Hitchen's razor states that the person making a claim has the burden of proof, and I assumed that would've also applied to removal of content via UNDUE(?), but to assume bad faith or vandalism was, with hindsight, an error. Thanks again! WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find WP:ONUS helpful. It says While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. (I added the emphasis because it is counter to your assumption) Schazjmd (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think an important point here if you want to consider Hitchens's razor is that when you make a change to the an article, you are making a claim that your change is an improvement to the article. If you are not claiming your change is an improvement to the article, you should not be making your change. So if you cannot provide evidence that your change is an improvement, then your claim that it's an improvement can be dismissed, and we can leave things as is.

I'd also note that onus was mentioned to you on the article talk page at 15:28, 14 March 2020 by User:PackMecEng so it's not the first time this was brought up.

Frankly though, on a person level I often find it better just to put aside who the onus should be on when we are the early stage of discussion. Someone needs to start off the discussion by actually explaining something be it the person who wants to make the change explaining why they feel it is an improvement, or the person opposing the change feeling it's not an improvement. When I looked at the earlier talk page discussion, I saw no real explanation from you why you felt your change was an improvement, all I saw was you insisting that other editors were wrong to revert you, vandals, revisionists etc.

That sort of stuff is almost never helpful on an article talk page. If you do have concerns over an editor's behaviour you should generally take it up directly with the editor and not discuss it on the article talk page. While saying your material was UNDUE is to some extent an explanation why your change was not an improvement, I do agree more explanation would have been helpful. But again whatever they said, you still should have explained why your change was an improvement.

Ultimately 2 sides insisting the other side needs to start the discussion is not going to achieve anything. Someone needs to actually do it. And that means someone actually explaining in some detail why they feel the change is or is not an improvement. Whichever side your on, it might as well be you to start that discussion. Onus and other issues means there are some cases where maybe it's reasonable to wait for the other 'side' to start but IMO it's best to treat these cases as rare unless you're sure few people familiar with our norms are likely to disagree. That is the point I tried to make earlier, unfortunately it doesn't seem like it was understood.

BTW, although I have almost no involvement in the gun control area, I recognise a bunch of the names of the people you got in dispute with, and I strongly suspect they're very often in disagreement with each other on proposed changes to the article. One of them, I don't think is generally involved in the area, they were probably draw to the dispute by the editwarring and noticeboards. (Actually this could have been me since I saw your last revert except I didn't revert you since I was hoping you'd do so before you were blocked.)

That's one reason why your unsubstantiated claims of bias are silly and you need to assume good faith about other editors motivations. More generally, highly contentious articles like the NRA one tend to have plenty of different editors with different viewpoints, so it's quite likely you will find some editors agreeing with you unless your proposed change is very far from our policies and guidelines. (Although getting back to my earlier point, it's hard for people to be agreeing to something, when there has been no explanation for the change.)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chiming in, that makes sense and I did create a talk page section about my addition per BRD. I just smelt a rat because my addition[5] - which is the crux of this issue - was relatively minor, added a noteworthy but missing international link which was referenced by investigative journalism from a reputable source, but was repeatedly removed by multiple users with a haste that aroused my suspicion.

In trying to focus on the content I was met with vexatious claims of personal attacks; I made no such personal attacks and only raised a suspicion (not an assertion) of bias regarding some users, and without the UNDUE claim being elaborated upon simply saw it as vandalism. I had assumed deletion of referenced content, which improves an article, would meet the vandalism criteria. And I'm still trying to understand what undue weight my edit had: the other belligerents in this dispute have been peculiarly quiet when asked how or why my addition gave any undue weight. It's as though UNDUE is being used to stonewall additions that disagree with some narrative. The reversion of my addition does not come across as fair and reasonable use of UNDUE.

My intention is to focus on the content here and not be dragged into dispute by any user, so I requested admin help for a simple clarification (ie; what was actually UNDUE here) but a counter-claim of edit warring was very quickly filed against me. Although it's my fault for not being aware of the 3 revert rule. Will be making the case on the Talk page for why this addition improves the article now, and will be certain to assume good faith going forward. Thanks! WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of vandalism is a personal attack. Continuing to edit war, as you are doing right now on the 3O board, is disruptive--and in that very request you continue to make the unwarranted claims of POV. Edit warring is an attitude; you do not need to break the 3R line to be found guilty of edit warring. Consider this a warning. There is discussion on the talk page; El C has kindly allowed you to continue that discussion, so do what is suggested here--by Nil Einne and others as well. Without the personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted in your opinion, yes, but the vandalism criteria was met and my claim of vandalism remains. It's not a personal attack because I didn't call anyone a vandal, and have only described the malicious behaviour. OTOH, I am being accused of making personal attacks but no evidence of this is being provided. There's a world of difference between describing behaviour, and calling someone a vandal. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WinstonSmith, accuse that editor one more time of vandalism and I will block you on the spot. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) WinstonSmith01984: The vandalism criteria were not met. All editors clearly believed they were improving Wikipedia. This is basically accepted by anyone familiar with the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia. Also saying something is vandalism when it is not, is well accepted as a personal attack. So is accusing editors of bias without good evidence. Anyone who is familiar with ANI, has dealt with this sort of stuff many times over. You are very far from the first person who has made the mistake. Unfortunately you are also one of those who refuses to accept you made a mistake when told by experienced editors. Plenty of people have tried to help you, but if you keep insisting something is true, when anyone with any experience here tells you it's not, it's quite likely you just going to earn a full block. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WinstonSmith01984 I strongly suggest you withdraw that ANI thread or at least stop adding to it. As a new editor, if you need further help, try the WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk. ANI is not the place to seek help. But it will also help a lot of if you start reading more. WP:3O says "Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors". This tells you what the name of the page already tells you. It is a place to request a third opinion. If there are already more than 2 people in the discussion, as there is when there are about 5 people or more already taking part in the discussion, you cannot request a third opinion since there is already a third opinion. 3O is therefore not a suitable form of dispute resolution. I'd note that while using some form of "outside" dispute resolution can be beneficial, it also often shouldn't be necessary. Simply continuing discussion on the article talk page can often result in resolution especially when there are multiple editors. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A final comment, since I don't think any of this is really helping. I said the above without having looked at you 3O post. Now that I did look at the 3O post, frankly the fact it wasn't a third opinion you were looking for but a n-th was actually probably the least problematic thing about your request. (Also given your request, I'd say it's more accurate to call it a 10th opinion or something.) Still, the point stands, if we put aside everything else, it's easy to see that you 3O request was invalid since there were way more than 2 people already involved. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For such a minor, NPOV edit, this has caused an incredible amount of consternation from other editors. I'm the one on the receiving end of all this. The initial claim of WP:UNDUE against me has not been established and please understand I intend to take this to arbitration should a ban result. There is precedent for ruling in my favour in arbitration. Other than that, I'm doing my best here to focus on the content and not be dragged into dispute by others. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about the Third Opinion request: I'm one of the most frequent contributors at 3O and I just want to confirm what Nil Einne has said that the request made there would have been removed (i.e. declined), even if Drmies had not removed it, due to the number of editors involved in the dispute. Please consult Dispute Resolution if you feel that dispute resolution is still needed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TransporterMan, I'm learning-as-I-go here and hope to not be pulling the newbie card much longer :-) WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV-based removal of content (permalink) shows a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Collaboration is required here, not endless debating with an inability to hear the views of several experienced editors. An indefinite block is not forever—it can be lifted once an understanding of the situation is shown, provided there is a plan to avoid future problems. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2020 (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).

WinstonSmith01984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I pledge to engage constructively with other editors, assume good faith in any instance of dispute, and rescind from the allegations of vandalism I made.

I will endeavour to better understand the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, and admit I could have done a (much) better job of raising my WP:CRUSH suspicion.

Please indicate if any other behaviour of mine needs addressing to qualify for unblocking.

Best regards.

WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Hi WinstonSmith01984, this is unspecific, and was written on the same day as the block notification. "Engage constructively" is unspecific, since you probably meant to engage constructively before as well, but did not succeed. The second paragraph could be part of any unblock request; the third one is a friendly, contentless formality. The message below the unblock request is similarly unspecific or even irrelevant.

After a thought period longer than 8 hours, probably rather a few months (standard offer: 6 months), if you create an unblock request, please make sure that it directly addresses what led to the block, concisely and without empty phrases. In your request, please provide multiple specific examples for edits you would make when unblocked. Ideally, agree to a binding topic ban for the areas of earlier conflicts.

Thank you very much and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2020 (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.

I was involved in the discussion that led to your block, so I'm not going to consider the appeal. I'll offer you a piece of advice however - if I were you, I'd offer a substantially more detailed self-analysis of where you went wrong than your 'could have done a (much) better job' statement. Explain what you did wrong, and how you will do better next time. Prior to the block, you had several of the most experienced editors on this entire site offering you guidance - I don't know whether you thought you knew better than them, or if you didn't understand what they were saying to you, but for whatever reason you didn't comply with their advice. You need to convince us that you now understand what you didn't seem to before. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you taking the time to reply, thanks GirthSummit.

Outside of some emotive language, where I went wrong is difficult to understand. What at first appeared to be simple vandalism, was apparently more in-line with tendentious editing. But exactly how and where to raise such a suspicion is still not clear to me even after reading WP:CRUSH. I had assumed plain language on AN/I was appropriate, and should have held back from reverting the edits which undid my contribution.

This fiasco is also hard to digest because of the ad verecundiam. As long as I'm bound by logic, experience does not necessarily lend credibility to any argument, and this fallacy of logic was used to infer my contribution had no merit. The counter-claims I was subject to relied heavily on ad verecundiam, ipse dixit, and much effort was made to divert attention from my contribution and make it about anything except that. There was barely any focus on content, the arguments against my contribution fell down, and blatant character assassination quickly ensued. This modus operandi is straight out of less-scrupulous PR playbooks.

While admitting my own errors, and there surely are many, I remain highly disenfranchised with Wikipedia because of how this was handled and am reluctant to contribute again. I don't want to paint this as a loss or anything because Wikipedia has an immense pool of talent to draw upon; the loss is mine because I was looking forward to contributing.

However, so-long as experience is used to give credence to any argument before actual, rational argument is, it's difficult to entertain the idea this place offers all editors an even footing.

Regards

WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]