User talk: AppGoo0011

Disruptive editing

Please avoid inserting ethnicities into leads that are unsourced or poorly noted. You're aware this is against MOS and have been previously told, it's just disruptive pointless editing at this point. XeCyranium (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok, didn't know it had to be sourced when it was apparent via the pictures. AppGoo0011 (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Aquillion (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

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).

AppGoo0011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would appreciate the opportunity to be reinstated, and would agree to a broadly construed topic ban on race and ethnicity. I understand that capitalizing races/uncapitalizing races (e.g. [W/w]hite / [B/b]lack) without consensus on a per-article basis is not permitted. I feel I have more constructive edits to offer, especially in articles about technology.

Decline reason:

Like others, I am not convinced that your problematic behavior will stop even when editing about other topic areas. As such, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

Technology is a pretty broad topic area. What aspects of technology? 331dot (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: Mobile Wallets and payment systems. Please see my edits to Google Wallet, Google Pay, Apple Wallet, and Apple Pay. AppGoo0011 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

331dot, I would like to see much more acknowledgement and self-reflection about the disruptive behavior in recent months. Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. AppGoo, knowing what you want to edit is only part of this. Agreeing to a topic ban is a start, but you are going to have to convince us that after barely a half hour you've seen the light here. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS:RACECAPS states that either white/black or White/Black are acceptable. After reading that, I began to change some articles. Then I was told I had to wait for a consensus on each article. So I made various Talk page topics that stated my desired changes. Some agreed on all caps, some agreed on mixed caps, and some went nowhere. The ones that went nowhere were then mass reverted, so I presumed I broke a rule of creating too many Talk page entries and ceased. I then moved into inserting race and elaborating on quotations where I thought they could be needed. I was then told that this is unacceptable editing as well. I was previously used to the way I edit my technology articles, where edits are very rarely contested, nor am I ever summoned to a Talk page. So it seems I am incapable of understanding the various rules that come with mentioning race or ethnicity in an article, and I think my edits of articles featuring technology are more appreciated and presumably break no rules, so I would like to continue with those edits only. AppGoo0011 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) IMHO, you also need to stop using the terms evident and self-evident. I think this is at the heart of your difficulties here. We have an article WP:BLUE which states that you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. But the times that you have used it were not actually self-evident and needed sourcing. Actually, they could have been incorrect -- which means they were incorrect to state. The Universe is complex and nuance exists everywhere. We do need to show our homework instead of making declarations of WP:TRUTH . O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I find the feedback above disingenuous and misleading. It does not explain why the editor disregarded the crystal clear advice they received at ANI in February. It does not address the inaccurate and misleading edit summaries. It does not address the unacceptable original research of racially categorizing people based on looking at a photo online. Most importantly, it does not explain the editor's disruptive focus on racial issues. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

They informed me to cease capitalizing/un-capitalizing pre-existing mentions of racial groups without consensus in February. They didn't say anything about not inserting mentions of race where there previously were none, as I hadn't made any such edits at the time. I wasn't aware new mentions of race had to be sourced. My focus on these issues are simply because I have an interest in them. The incomplete edit summaries were caused by a multitude of editors seemingly following my contributions, taking issue with each Talk topic I created, even if they had never contributed to the article before. I would've liked to have had them be comprehensive. AppGoo0011 (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Although in the ANI report I only focused on edits made since the last report that related to its topic and didn't review their full history, looking over it finds similar problems in other topic areas. eg. Here they changed "she" to "he" for a transfeminine office-holder, immediately followed by adding "& alleged pedophile" to the lead of their biography without a source (though to be clear she was accused of four counts of distribution of child sexual abuse images, as the article currently says with better sourcing; but instantly dropping it in the lead, worded like that, with no source, is still eyebrow-raising.) Here they deleted a bunch of clearly-legitimate sources and made a significant change to the first sentence of an article's lead with the misleading edit summary of misspellings and improper citations. --Aquillion (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Utterly unpersuasive. When you write I wasn't aware new mentions of race had to be sourced, that is solid evidence that you do not understand the core content policy of Verifiability, and should not edit in the topic area of race and ethnicity. Unless you convincingly demonstrate an understanding of core content policies, I do not think that you should be editing at all. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, it didn't seem like new information, since all those articles already had images of the victims. I've admitted several times that I now understand that it was new information, and new information should always be cited. AppGoo0011 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You said above "I wasn't aware new mentions of race had to be sourced" so you were clearly aware there is something new about what you were doing. More importantly, here's the thing. If we put aside you're limited editing back in 2011 etc, you've been a semiregular editor since mid 2020 with about 1300 edits since then. This isn't an extreme amount, but it's enough to earn you extended confirmed and that you really should understand the basics of editing here by now.

While new editors are welcome and not expected to be familiar with our policies and guidelines, they do need to be able to learn them and apply them in a reasonable fashion. An editor of your experience really should understand by now the policy of verifiability. So the fact you now have some very minor understanding of it is no reassurance for the future, since it seems way to hard for you to learn even the extreme basics.

In the previous ANI, people were saying things like "as it pertains to subtly (or not-so-subtly) pushing racism into a variety of articles", "shows a degree of insensitivity and unfamiliarity (trying to be polite) that suggests they don't belong anywhere near articles related to race" and "That statement alone should result in a WP:NOTHERE block. The user is clearly pushing an agenda." So while no one may have explicitly raised the issue of you adding race, you should have been aware that generally editors were highly concerned about your edits regarding race. As an American who is "interest in them" about issues of the race of victims and offenders, I would have expected you the be aware how controversial such issues can be way more than me (as someone who isn't even an American and doesn't take that much interest but is aware).

Yet despite all that, you thought there would be no problem with you adding the race when it was something sources were barely talking about, and you didn't even supply a source, simply because there were photos. Again, perhaps it would be okay for someone who was extremely sheltered and so was genuinely unaware there could be any problem with what they were doing and would quickly learn, but in your case, you really should have known already. So it seems that for whatever reason it's going to take way to long to learn extreme basics. Unless you can find a mentor, it's unlikely anyone will have the time to teach you every single thing you have to learn to edit here since it seems you need to learn every single thing step by step and very slowly.

I'm unconvinced a topic ban will help for two reasons. One is that because it's so difficult for you to learn how to edit here, you're still going to cause problems elsewhere. But two is that given the problems you have understanding the basics, I find it unlikely you'll be able to properly apply a broadly constructed topic ban and so will instead end up making way too many edits at the borderline if not across the line of your topic ban. IMO, you really need to do way more to convince us somehow there's now going to be rapid improvement in your editing even if all the history makes this seem unlikely.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, like what? Would you like to critique any of the pages I've made or edits I've performed on articles that reference technology? Those are the only pages I'm requesting reinstated editing privileges for. AppGoo0011 (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Nobody is likely to take the time and effort to critique what you claim to be your best edits, as it were. You are expected, instead, to convince an unblocking administrator that you thoroughly understand why you were blocked, and provide convincing assurances that this pattern of disruptive behavior will not re-emerge when editing other topic areas. Cullen328 (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

IMO, ultimately the question is, why should we believe you are capable of sticking to constructive editing when you've show a complete inability to understand the basics of editing here even after a long time? And where even in your request to be unblocked, have told us the only way there is any hope for you to edit, is if the exact problem with your editing is spelled out in precise detail since otherwise you don't understand? Editors are never blocked for their best edits, they are blocked for their worst ones. Some editors who make very good edits, are arguably allowed to get away with stuff they shouldn't but this refers to editors who write multiple FAs almost by themselves. Editors who's edits are more run of the mill are not going to be allowed to edit just because some of their edits are good if their worst edits are absolutely terrible. So just telling you make some good edits is not going to work when there is no reason to think either from your history or from what you've said so far, that you will be able to only make such good edits. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me give real examples. The Venmo and Cash App articles seem to be stuff you might want to edit if unblocked. Is there any way the proposed topic ban will limit your editing to those articles as they are written now? Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

i don't believe so, no. AppGoo0011 (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so you're saying that a "broadly construed topic ban on race and ethnicity" on your editing of Cash App#Cultural impact? Nil Einne (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't edit those sections. AppGoo0011 (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Why did you say "i don't believe so, no" earlier but now "I wouldn't edit those sections"? The section was there when I linked it above, it's why I gave it as an example. Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't check the pages earlier. I assumed there would be no mention of race on them. AppGoo0011 (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That's part of the problem. You should not assume anything. In fact, our article could potentially have more on that in the future since black Americans use cash app more than most or all other racial or ethnic groups in the US [1] [2] to the extent that it's a bit of a meme [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. While the meme itself doesn't seem to have been covered in RS, the demographic data looks like it has per my earlier sources so that is something that could potentially be added.

There are other weird things which may or may not be sufficiently covered in WP:RS and WP:DUE e.g. [9] [10].

Navigating any of these things are something you will have to do when editing those articles, and since race and ethnicity can be a significant issue in the US, as you must be aware better than me with issues like affirmative action and hiring practices, discrimination and bias in biometrics, ID check requirements etc something that could come in a lot of tech articles, and a frankly a large percentage of our articles.

Being able to navigate such issues are something you need to for a topic ban to work. Are you going to pay better attention when editing? When you're topic banned, it's your responsibility and no one else's to ensure you comply with it. While you can seek feedback and guidance where unsure, this requires you to recognise a possible problem plus also there are limits to how much people can handhold you so you need to have a reasonable ability to decide for yourself whether to stay away from some parts of the article, all of the article, or if it's perfectly fine for now.

While there was no requirement to answer any of my questions, since you did you really should have take the time to consider them properly or at least acknowledge you haven't done so when answering. I mean wasn't it obvious I was testing you, so expected more than a minute's thought? Yes those articles aren't super short, but they aren't that long either. And I chose specific articles which relate to what you want to edit to try and avoid the risk you'd just think, well I don't care about these articles at all.

While I did give one red herring, otherwise I thought I'd make it easy enough that you'd probably pass my basic test. I mean not being in the US, I've never used any of these apps and while I occasionally heard about them in various contexts I wasn't aware of any of this until I was searching for examples where race and ethnicity intersected with payment apps and came across them. (As it stands, I don't see any problem with the Venmo article, I mean there is a brief mention of Chinese takeaways, but IMO that's so minimally about race or ethnicity that it's probably fine. Although if you had mentioned that as a possible issue, there would be no harm in that so it was also not a problem.)

Given all this combined with your earlier demonstrated inability to understand editor's concerns unless they were specifically spelled out (and even then.....) I simply have no confidence you can navigate a topic ban successfully, and suspect any admin reviewing your block will feel the same.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Note: This notification was triggered due to your recent edits to Sweet Baby Inc.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)