User talk:Thedoctar

Fair Use in Australia discussion[edit]

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

March 2020[edit]

Superfluous warning deletedKleuske (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous!! There's *video testimony* of McCabe admitting he assisted DuPont's public disinformation campaign!?!?thedoctar (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have already reverted three times within 24 hours: 1st, 2nd, 3rd. A 4th revert is likely to result in you being blocked for edit warring. Your interests in Wikipedia would be better served by instead moving to the article's Talk Page and discussing the issue with other editors. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

Who are you AzureCitizen? Alt account of Kleuske??

There's *video testimony*. This information deserves to be on the Wiki page. The man is extremely unethical. I'm standing my ground unless you give *me* reasons that what I've published is in violation of wiki rules.

thedoctar (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not an alternate account of another user. Your requested reason: The Wikipedia rule you're violating is edit warring to insert content into a WP:BLP that has been objected to by others. Wikipedia's policies, customs, and norms require you to stop edit warring and instead engage on the article's Talk Page to discuss the issue, seek compromise if needed, and find consensus on what can be added and how it should be added. I see you erased the template warning added by Kleuske, an editor who I have never interacted with before in my 13 years on Wikipedia. I sincerely hope you read that warning first, because violating 3RR is a bright line rule on Wikipedia. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azure, I'm not going to go through complex Wikipedia regulations. I have laid my case as to why I believe this information should be on the page. THERE IS VIDEO TESTIMONY, THE PUBLIC DESERVES TO KNOW. You can either 1. make recommendations to improve my contribution or 2. fight with me to the death ;P.

thedoctar (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kleuske (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at W. Michael McCabe. 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 ~~~~}}. Jayron 32 14:14, 5 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).

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

Request reason:

This block in my view represents Wikipedia's reputation for being overly bureaucratic and wantonly punitive to noobie editors. Kleuske did not provide any arguments nor *evidence* as to why he had deleted my edit. In my view, the factuality of the matter was not in contention. There was *video testimony*, and journalistic articles reporting on deposition on McCabe. If it takes time to explain why my edit did not adhere to wiki regulations, he could've stated so. Instead, he just put up some links saying `you've violated these regulations' *without* any explanation or reference to my actual edit. And I had no opportunity to improve my edit as it was always deleted! Now, McCabe's page is a white lie, concealing his role in helping DuPont cover up the PFOA scandal. thedoctar (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per below. Frankly, it looks like you are deliberately trying to mislead us in this unblock request. Yamla (talk) 15:00, 5 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.

Contrary to the statement above "Kleuske did not provide any arguments nor *evidence* as to why he had deleted my edit", one can see that at Talk:W. Michael McCabe, Kleuske left a clear and detailed explanation for why the added material was inadequate. You did not address those concerns in your responses to him in that discussion, and also returned basically the same text a 4th time even after being warned to not do that. If you wish to be unblocked, you had likely better make clear in your request that you do not intend to return the contested material yet again without establishing consensus to do so. If you will agree to, instead, discuss the matter and build consensus on the talk page first, you could be unblocked. Please note that this block has nothing to do with the content you added, it only deals with the behavior you had; if you agree to correct the behavior, you can be unblocked. --Jayron 32 14:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32:I am utterly confused. I addressed Kleuske's concerns by highlighting the factual accuracy and adding references. I did not simply revert to my original edit so your claim is *false*. I added extra references *which was the point of contention* and then AzureCitizen *intervened without any criticism*. I was offended at Kleuske's reasons which were rather dismissive, but I accept I was too harsh on him.

The process of reaching a consensus is impossible if I cannot *edit my contribution and offer alternatives*. thedoctar (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lets handle these one by one. First, Kleuske raised concerns about your sources, claiming they were not adequate, he already noted that you cannot source controversial and contentious statements like these to a blog, an opinion piece, and a YouTube video of unknown provenance. You simply added this back with the same issue. You need to find scrupulously reliable sources instead. Secondly, when text is contested do not return it to the article. This was already pointed out to you in several warnings, for example here where you were clearly told to use the talk page to resolve the issue first. Also, you were clearly already notified of the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." The burden lies with you to use the article talk page to establish consensus to put the material back. You can't just keep forcing it back in against objections. The burden always lies with the person who wants to add the contested text to address the concerns and achieve consensus to add it back again. I will note that when you were told to follow proper procedure, your attitude was, and I quote, "I'm not going to go through complex Wikipedia regulations" The regulations exist to help prevent the sort of "winning by force of will" you are trying to do by repeatedly adding the contested text back over and over. Please stop that. Instead, use the article talk page, provide reliable sources being asked for, and if need be, ask for outside help in the form of dispute resolution such as WP:DRN or WP:3O requests. --Jayron 32 16:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You see, you can just dismiss whatever evidence as you want under some arbitrary ruling by some static Wiki page -- ridiculous. The documentary is highly respected and was premiered at the Sundance festival. It contains footage of Mr. McCabe being interviewed when he was deposed. I don't have access to those legal documents, which is why I used the documentary which interviews *the laywers pursuing the case*. Since you are too lazy to bother to review the evidence I submit, I cannot argue with you further. Since I am not a lawyer and do not know how to access deposition documents which may not be publicly available, I can only conclude that Wikipedia uses bureaucratic legislation to suppress facts, dismissing reliable sources of information because they haven't been rubber stamped by some golden authority.thedoctar (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the source of the problem here. The issue is not the interview itself, it is the interpretation of what the interview means that is the source of the controversy. At best, the text of an interview should only be used for direct quotes and close paraphrasing of what is said in the interview, NOT what it means or how one should interpret the interview or put it into context. If you want to use the interview as a source, you should limit it to direct quotes or close paraphrases like that. If you want to say "this testimony in the interview means that McCabe did X, Y and Z" then you also need a reliable source that reaches that conclusion. The interview is fine for citing what the interview directly says, but not for connecting dots as your trying to do. See here, to quote, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source...Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" Regardless, this is still not why you have been blocked. If you had been carrying on this discussion on the article talk page you would not have been blocked. The central issue is not these matters. The central issue is your repeated insistence on forcing your preferred text into the article. It may eventually belong there, even. I don't know. But legitimate concerns have been raised about the tone, content, and sourcing of your text, and you need to address those concerns before adding it back again. For the matter at hand, you need to assure us that you intend to do just that, and that you intend to NOT try to re-add the text until the legitimate concerns have been fixed. If you can do that, you can be unblocked. Just insisting that you're right is not the path forward here. Agreeing to discuss, rather than force the matter, is the way forward. --Jayron 32 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I refuse to work with Kleuske or AzureCitizen, both of whom are extremely rude and dismissive. I would much rather if I could submit my edits to you, and you add them.thedoctar (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I could argue the same with the obstructive behaviour of Keuslke and AzureCitizen; it looked to me as if they were trying to *deliberately suppress important information* and thus far I am convinced that this whole affair is due to ideological prejudices of people who know this bureaucratic system. Utterly ridiculous when I'm trying to add *factually correct information* that it's automatically removed! I *added my contribution with the video testimony* and it was *removed again with extra reasons not previously stated*. How do you expect me to reach a consensus if I *cannot contribute anything*. Suppression of factual information is something apparently you and Wikipedia don't care about.thedoctar (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: If the contention is not the facutality of my content *why delete it*? *Why not simply edit it for neutrality*?? Instead the result is the suppression of important facts pertaining to justice. I don't really care if I'm blocked or not. *I care that the truth is recorded*.thedoctar (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't expect you to reach consensus at this time. Prior to the block, we expected you to reach consensus via the article's talk page. Further, I acknowledge that you only care about the truth. That puts you at odds with Wikipedia; see WP:TRUTH and WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CONSENSUS. --Yamla (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thedoctar: If it is the truth, then reliable sources (not merely a blog or an opinion piece) will have already reported on it. Find those sources, and let us all read them. --Jayron 32 16:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Hi Mr. Technocrat. You can look at the *video testimony* in The Devil We Know. Okay, so Mr. McCabe *admitted to helping DuPont in a public disinformation campaign*. Okay, you don't like the word disinformation? I don't care, say defending PFOA against allegations. I really don't care. Did you look at the video? No. I'm betting Keuslke didn't. IF YOU DON'T LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, YOU CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS OF EDITING BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. If the truth doesn't matter to you or Wiki, I'd rather quit Wiki. thedoctar (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. You clearly have not grasped what Wikipedia is. We aim to summarize what reliable sources have to say on the subject, not what you or I think is The Truth. If you cannot leave your opinions at the doorstep and abide by that humble task, you are clearly not cut out to be a Wikipedian. Live long and prosper. Kleuske (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: It's technocrats like you who destroy the world. If someone can make you believe absurdities, then he can make you commit atrocities. thedoctar (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Email access revoked. I very strongly considered extending your block indefinitely, but decided against it. I expect that'll happen the next time you get blocked. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation with a Wiki Censor[edit]

Given the blocks above, you're likely to be indefinitely blocked the next time you try anything like this. Deor (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, do you work on behalf of the CIA or a corporation? --thedoctar (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely[edit]

You have been blocked for a period of three months from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

-- The Anome (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome, this really should have been an indef block. There is zero evidence that the behaviour will change in 3 months given the history of the account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: you're right, thanks for the second opinion. I've blocked them indefinitely now, talk page access revoked. -- The Anome (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]