User talk:Deep Purple 2013

Karen Black and COI[edit]

Please review WP:COI 80.136.196.48 (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Gail Brown. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is COI editor. Thank you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 08:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Hunter Carson 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This recently blocked editor[1] is hopping IPs and repeating the same shenanigans.[2][3] Not only does Black's page need protection from the blocked editor, so do the pages of her family members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep Purple 2013 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP in question was never blocked, but you might be if you continue to edit war! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the pages need protection, although that's to stop the COI editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B8A2:D7CA:55DA:3AEE (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and take heed[edit]

In addition to WP:COI please review WP:3RR and WP:MTR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B8A2:D7CA:55DA:3AEE (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

You will be blocked if there is any further edit warring. You must stop reverting at Karen Black and at the other articles where you are active. See the protection decline here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My message was too late. Deep Purple 2013 (talk · contribs) has been blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024 (continued)[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Hunter Carson. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2024 (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).

Deep Purple 2013 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The issue at hand is this IP jack rabbit[4][5][6] who is vandalizing the pages of Black and her family members, as I explain in detail here.[7] It's a no-brainer. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per below. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2024 (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.

As you have been told multiple times by multiple editors at multiple venues now, the IPs edits are not vandalism. Therefore both yourself and the IP have broken 3RR on multiple articles, and are therefore both blocked. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2024 (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).

Deep Purple 2013 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is an open-and-shut matter, but Karen Black's page is not a priority for the admins, so they've done diddly to intervene. 80.136.196.48 (also editing as 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B55E:EBB9:DBF7:EF2B and 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B8A2:D7CA:55DA:3AEE) keeps making trouble on the Wiki pages of Black and her family members. ** Claims Black's daughter Celine is "non-notable" and blanks/deletes any mention of her on Black's page.[8] Celine acted alongside her mother on film and has been mentioned in the press countless times. The blanking is ridiculous and bizarre. ** Makes similar edits on the Wiki pages of Black's son Hunter Carson[9] and sister Gail Brown.[10][11] ** Puts "Conflict of Interest" tag on page for no reason.[12] Claims in edit summary that content is "unreferenced", which is a complete lie and an obvious one at that. ** Deems entire family of Theodore McKeldin (whose daughter's widower is Black's brother) as "non-notable" and deletes/blanks properly sourced content, including the acknowledgment of a deceased grandson who twice ran for public office.[13] ** Removes licensed photos from article,[14] claiming that "family snaps are non-notable", which is rubbish as Gold Star articles like Katharine Hepburn and James Stewart display such photos. The troublemaking editor has been hopping IPs like a jack rabbit and continually repeats the same vandalism, claiming I have a "COI" (conflict of interest) which is nothing but a frivolous attempt to create chaos and divert attention. The solution is simple: Add protection to the pages of Karen Black, Gail Brown, Hunter Carson and Theodore McKeldin, block the jackrabbit's IP range and put watchdogs on the pages to make sure this editor doesn't return. It's a no-brainer. The "edit war" (which was just my reverting the jackrabbit's vandalism) that resulted in this trumped-up, 72-hour block is all smoke and mirrors. The jackrabbit's end goal is to denigrate Black and her family. The jackrabbit's edits are the root of the problem and it's plainly evident if the admins would simply take a look. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below discussion. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2024 (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.

The merits of your edits are not relevant. Removing edits that you disagree with or that are wrong is not an acceptable reason to edit war(see WP:EW). Removing edits that you think are correct is not vandalism even if the person removing them is wrong to do so. WP:EW states " edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism". 331dot (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the jackrabbit's IPs were blocked, yet the jackrabbit's most recent edits have not been reverted.[15][16][17][18] Why is the jackrabbit getting the last word? The jackrabbit's sock editing from multiple IPs makes it appear as though multiple users were reverting me, when the whole time it was one. As of this writing, each of those pages is incomprehensible due to the jackrabbit's blanking. The COI tags are meritless and were added in bad faith. The jackrabbit is trying to create chaos (quite successfully) and the admins aren't doing squat. What noticeboard do I have to bring this up at to get anything of any consequence going? I brought it up on Black's discussion page[19] and no one except the jackrabbit has replied. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not going to get unblocked just so that you can argue that you were "right" in an edit war and some IP was "wrong". Also stop constantly calling them a "jackrabbit", it can and likely will be construed as a personal attack. If you want to get unblocked, you will need to demonstrate that you understand that you have violated the three-revert rule and state how you will avoid doing so again. There is no other way you will get out of this. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that the 80.x.x.x IP and the 2003 IPv6 are the same person, which is why I blocked them as well for the same time as you. However, I see no prior blocks for the IPs, and your links do not say which IPs have been blocked, so I see no evidence of block evasion. Secondly, the IPs edits have not been reverted because since there is no obvious "correct version" (this is a content dispute, not vandalism) there is no reason for anyone to do so. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also point out that the IP is correct about extended family members; it is rarely necessary to write about them unless they have had a major impact on the subject's life. Obviously we note immediate family (spouse, children, siblings, parents), but that is generally all that is required. For example, the two people in the example you mention above (Theodore McKeldin) are clearly not obviously relevant to his biography and neither is notable in a Wikipedia sense; it is fairly obvious that you have only included them because one is related to Black. You may want to consider this going forward. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2024 (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).

Deep Purple 2013 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My unblock request on February 14 (five days ago) has not been answered. It seems to have fallen by the wayside. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Look below. One unblock request is enough--and really, you're not working very hard at getting into people's good graces here. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2024 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Deep Purple 2013 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've just been blocked by Drmies for the following reason: "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia user returns to the same topics, making the same edits, right after the block has expired--still refuses to accept responsibility, still refuses to actually communicate." On the contrary, I am here to build an encyclopedia. I've returned to the same topics because no one else bothers to address the topics in any way (as evidenced by the fact that no one has given their input in the discussion I started at Karen Black's talk page four days ago, or on the administrator noticeboard for that matter [20]). I got frustrated and irritated by the lack of participation and the complete absence of progress with regard to the topics. What I now understand is that I'll have to wait for others to put in their two cents, however long that may take. I promise to refrain from editing until a consensus is reached. No more cutting corners. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per the below discussion. Please note that you are topic-banned from editing the biography of Karen Black, any other person related or connected to her, or adding, removing or editing any material about Black or those connected people to any article. You may edit the talk pages of such articles to suggest changes. Please do not let me have to enforce this topic ban with partial blocks. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion[edit]

I hate nothere blocks. Too broad, too non-specific a catchall. And not accurate from the blockee's point of view. So, the prior block expired, you went disruptive again, and Drmies decided a time limited block was ineffective. Someone must care about the topics you edit, or we wouldn't be here. Four days is not sufficient time to let a talk page discussion run, and the admin notice board is not the place to discuss content. It would be better to post to the talk page of whatever Projects the article belongs to. After giving it a week on the article's talk page. You cannot just go on your merry way as I surmise you have done. Please address these and any other concerns I've missed. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see edit warring is the original problem. Please see our policy on WP:edit warring. In the event of a WP:content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek WP:consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek WP:dispute resolution. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I did expect this to happen, given the language used in the editor's initial unblock requests. I wonder if, instead of a full indef, an indef partial block from the articles concerned might suffice, which would prevent the edit-warring whilst allowing them to contribute on the talk pages. Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. What if they take the edit warring to a new topic? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Black Kite, User:Deepfriedokra, y'all know me well enough by now--go ahead and do what you see fit. DFO, "NOTHERE" is a catchall phrase, often involving a number of different types of disruptions, which is why I explained at some length in the block log. BK, in general I don't mind a partial block, not at all, but I don't even mind a complete unblock, if you think the user now realizes how serious a matter this is. In this case, it's not one page, it's a couple of connected pages, and one of the things that I find troubling is the galleries in the Black and Brown articles--not by themselves, but they seem to signal that the editor does not fully grasp what it is we do here, and this kind of stuff confirms that, to me anyway. Plus, I think that these connected articles are their actual interest--not the encyclopedia as a whole. But please, do what you think is right and Deep Purple, if there's an unblock, you have my blessing. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies My unblock request on February 14 (five days ago) has not been answered. It seems to have fallen by the wayside. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no response to my question about what to do instead of edit warring. Not convinced problems won't return. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You never answered my question about what should you do instead of edit warring. Please deal with the other issues raised in this thread. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seek WP:dispute resolution is what I should do instead of edit warring. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You never asked me a question, by the way. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Proposed a topic ban. @Deep Purple 2013:, how would you feel about that? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Fine.

I see "Jackrabbit" as demeaning in insulting. What do you say to that? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. How shall I refer to this nameless user?

Black Kite, what specific articles do you have in mind, for clarity sake? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you now see the difference between vandalism and good fait edits you disagree with? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

Black Kite, if you feel OK to unblock before I circle back here, please proceed without me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user.. . Awaiting BlackKite's opinion. Drmies granted us carte blanche, so it's up to us or the next reviewer who comes along. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked subject to topic ban (see above). Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024 (continued further)[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for clear failure to get the point of a topic ban. If you are blocked from editing an article, merely asking others to do it for you is clearly purely disruptive..

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra:I said I would seek dispute resolution and did just that. There's no rationality for this block. @SMcCandlish:Requesting input since you were one of the few who replied to my post before it got shut down. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you violated your topic ban? If you were adhering to your topic ban, why would you need dispute resolution? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ping. I'm not an admin, so can't do anything about this, and I don't know the full back-story of what these blocks have been about (and various other warnings your talk page is peppered with). I have a little bit of experience in advising folks with a conflict of interest how to stay out of trouble here, if you get unblocked. As for the thread at AN, I just said some of your issues with the IP-hopper appeared correct, because the IP was making bogus policy/guideline arguments (like applying "notability" to things that have nothing to do with WP:Notability at all, etc.). That doesn't mean you "win" or are blameless or whatever, just that the IP's behavior maybe needed closer examination, too. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: My 3 week old post at Black's talk page still has not been replied to. To get other users to chime in, I added an RfC tag, but Black Kite removed it without reason. In effect the IP-hopper is getting the last word.[21][22][23][24] Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Being "right" does not grant carte blanche to edit war. All edit warriors think they are right. One should stop reverting and WP:DR. If behavioral issues arise, report at WP:ANI. Though I think the problem here is violating a TBAN. On the other hand, going to DR shows you were paying attention to what I wrote, so kudos for that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time telling if DP violated the TBAN. BK said they were

topic-banned from editing the biography of Karen Black, any other person related or connected to her, or adding, removing or editing any material about Black or those connected people to any article. You may edit the talk pages of such articles to suggest changes.

I do think the way DP acted after the unblock was disruptive—they opened three identical discussion at different noticeboards and turned the article talk page discussion into an RfC. Maybe that's what BK was getting at with the recent block reason "clear failure to get the point of a topic ban"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did they technically violate it? No. But I'm pretty sure that being told that they can't edit these articles, and then immediately opening multiple discussions asking others to make those edits - in the same passive-aggressive "I'm obviously right and it's ridiculous that no-one else can see it" manner - is simply disruptive. At this point, their behaviour is nothing but a time sink. Black Kite (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't want them to make edit requests on the talk page, you could have included as part of the topic ban. At the very least, you could have left out You may edit the talk pages of such articles to suggest changes from the unblock message. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone who's wrong on the internet: BK also removed the RfC tag on Black's talk page for no reason. The RfC tag should be restored. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit difficult to restore an RfC when there was no RfC there in the first place (hence why I removed the tag). On that talk page are a number of very old discussions, and you complaining about an IP. That's not an RfC. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing possible changes to the various articles on those article's talk pages = fine. Doing what they actually did - demanding others make those changes on multiple project pages = not fine. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And RfCs are generally used at article talk pages to get more community input only after general discussion at that page has failed to come to a consensus; WP:RFCBEFORE. (Nor does "I'm not getting what I want" equate to a failure to come to consensus, which is not unanimity; cf. also WP:1AM; it's an essay, but the explanation there about how consensus policy works is accurate.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently returned[edit]

See [25]