User talk:51.7.23.71

October 2018[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring.

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

Request reason:

I encountered editors disruptively reverting, and attempted to engage with them. But they clearly wanted to act disruptively; I did not. Note the bad faith use of noticeboards by User:Binksternet: a false claim of vandalism here, and a false claim of sockpuppetry here, both in reference to my edits, in pursuit of an edit war that they wanted, not me, to insert links to German-language articles into a list. I do not think they even understood what they were reverting. It's obvious that when a reader clicks on a blue link in an article, they expect to be taken to an English language article, not a German one. 51.7.23.71 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please take careful note of what Acroterion says below. If you have a content disagreement, you should solve it by discussion and consensus - *not* by insisting you are right and edit warring over it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2018 (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.

You've been edit-warring over a wide swath of articles. Your claim that German sources are prohibited is nonsense, and your claim that if English sources do not exist the subject is not notable on the English Wikipedia is also nonsense. Accusations of bad faith are an aggravating factor, and I am thinking that 24 hours was too lenient. If this resumes after the block is over the next block will be much longer. Acroterion (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim any such thing. I said that links in the article text should be to English language articles only. That is indeed supported by the Manual of Style. To avoid reader confusion, inline interlanguage, or interwiki, linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged. Exceptions: Wiktionary and Wikisource entries may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed), and {{Interlanguage link}} template may be helpful to show a red link accompanied by an interlanguage link if no article exists in English Wikipedia. And in a lengthy list where every single item contains a link to an English language article, it's obvious that the standard for inclusion in that article is that items should have an English language article about them.

I have not been doing anything "over a wide swath of articles" except make necessary and productive edits, backed by policies and guidelines, which unfortunately have been targeted by people who either don't understand the guidelines and policies, or don't care about them.

And if you think that the use of noticeboards to report my edits for vandalism and sockpuppetry were in good faith, please explain under what criteria you would regard them as vandalism, and who I am supposed to be a sockpuppet of. The user clearly was not acting in good faith when making those reports; they wanted to "win" the fight they had picked, and were prepared to misuse the noticeboards to achieve that. I guess you fell for it. 51.7.23.71 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit warring at Austrian German (apparently over some time and using at least two IP addresses), at List of unsolved deaths, at Cosmological constant problem, and those are only the first three of your contributions I checked. In all cases you were edit warring against at least two other editors. If you do not learn and accept that Wikipedia WP:EW policy forbids that, you will continue to be prevented from editing here. It is as simple as that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At Austrian German, there is an obviously biased presentation of facts which contravenes several policies and guidelines:

"In Germany, however, Standard Austrian German is still confused with some regional standard that is not considered "pure"" - "still" carries connotation of negative judgement, in violation of NPOV. The whole tone of the sentence is derogatory towards Germans.
"This despite sound evidence that 80% of Austrian high school students and 90% of Austrian high school teachers consider German a pluricentric language, with more than one standard variety" - "sound evidence" here is clearly again the judgement of the user who added the material anonymously back in February. If evidence is presented, it does not need to be accompanied by a judgement of how "sound" or otherwise it is.
The two sentences together are clearly being combined to imply a conclusion not present in either. That is in violation of WP:SYNTH.
The two sentences occur in the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of the most important aspects of the article. Neither claim occurs in the article, and so neither should appear in the lead.

At List of unsolved deaths, as I have explained, you have two issues:

Interwiki links inline are not useful, and should not be used. The MOS is clear about that.
The dozens or hundreds of items in the list all have English language wikipedia articles, except the two that I removed.

At Cosmological constant problem, you have absurdly badly written text, added by a WP:SPA, User:Pamdeur. Did you read the text? I'd love to hear exactly what you understood from it. Have a go at explaining the first paragraph to me, would you?

Each of these three articles had major issues, and I improved them. Obviously, ideally, this would attract thanks and praise. Indifference would also be fine. But sadly, on Wikipedia, there are a great many editors who just like to revert edits, to wield some kind of power. Article quality, to them, is irrelevant. A great example also from today: I found an article about an Ethiopian actress, which wrongly presented her matronymic as a surname. I fixed it.[1] Someone undid my edit, obviously without having read it.[2] They restored the error I'd fixed, as well as errors like "her parent were". Unusually, this one realised their mistake and reverted themselves. But the people who chose to edit war over the three articles you've mentioned didn't. They did not care in the slightest about the quality of the article; that was irrelevant to them. And now two of those three articles are protected with all the problems in place. Feel good about that, do you? 51.7.23.71 (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions of personal righteousness aren't a license to edit-war. I didn't go into all of your edits either, as those I checked were sufficiently disruptive to justify blocking. Acroterion (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

..and of course you ignore my point about the user misusing noticeboards in obvious bad faith. You really must have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. 51.7.23.71 (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had earlier noted your point and have taken it into account as part of your pattern of disruptive editing and treatment of the encyclopedia as a battleground, causing me to think that a 24-hour block was too light. You're making the hole deeper. Acroterion (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that the user was acting in bad faith was fully justified. It is not disruptive to point out bad faith misuse of noticeboards; it is disruptive to misuse noticeboards. I asked you two questions that you would have answered quite easily if you genuinely thought they were acting in good faith. You didn't bother to answer, so I conclude that you know full well they were acting in bad faith, but you approve of their actions. 51.7.23.71 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased the block to 60 hours based on the attacks against other editors and the battleground attitude on display here. Further abuse of this talkpage as a forum for disparagement of other editors who have tried to deal with your disruptive edits may result in removal of talkpage access. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So is that you don't understand what vandalism is, or that you approve of false accusations of it? And all the other policies and guidelines I've noted - you are ignorant of them, or disagree with them, or simply couldn't care less what they say and are here to wield the minuscule power you've obtained? 51.7.23.71 (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked for the duration of the block, to save you digging yourself in any deeper. Read WP:EW. Abide by it. That is all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.