Content deleted Content added
Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (29 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 30:
== Trump Sexual Misconduct ==
It's not RS because the butler is clearly not independent and is also intensely "loyal" to Mr. Trump, as a good butler often is. If you don't like "not RS" then it's clearly UNDUE. Just because a self-serving statement is repeated in the news media does not make it well-sourced content for an encyclopedia. Please undo your reinsertion, which is a violation of DS, and state your view on talk. Thanks. [[User:SPECIFICO |<
== Muhammad Ali ==
Line 77:
== Trump misconduct ==
Soham, the reason that TTAAC's content stayed in the article so long is that few other editors are prepared to edit war in violation of ARBAP2. Basically, once it was reverted ARBAP2 tells us to keep it out so that the matter can be resolved on talk before reinsertion. When an editor violates this and reinserts disputed content on an article subject to this sanction, other editors will generally stand back rather than reinsert it only to set up another round of edit-warring. Your recent message at AE doesn't seem to reflect the DS restriction as the primary reason for the defective content's relative longevity there. [[User:SPECIFICO |<
:That's incorrect. My edit was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=751061151&oldid=751038800 reverted almost immediately.] The content was later re-added by someone else.[[User:TheTimesAreAChanging|TheTimesAreAChanging]] ([[User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging|talk]]) 21:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Line 95:
== Ali ==
Hi, Soham - I gave the article a quick look - it's a long one and will require some quiet time. I'll go back and give it a closer look after the weekend. I'm still trying to deal with the rapid expiration of yet another year!!! [[File:SMirC-wine.svg|x20px|wine]][[File:SMirC-party.svg|x20px|*<:o)]] <sup>[[User:Atsme|<
:{{u|Atsme}}, No worries. Take your time. [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321#top|talk]]) 00:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Line 145:
pinging senior Admin {{u|Risker}}, with whom i have never interacted, to look into my situation and advise me if she thinks I am an asset to WP. [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321#top|talk]]) 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
:I have no idea whether or not you are an asset in the content area; I'm not going to review your edits. I rarely consider anything resembling unblock requests, which I'm assuming this is intended to be, in some way. Reading your talk page, particularly all of the stuff below, I'm not motivated to review your situation. Even though we rarely communicate, I generally find myself in agreement with Floquenbeam's actions, and nothing you have written has inclined me to think that this particular block would be grounds for me to make an exception to my usual practices. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 23:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
::Thank you for your response. This was not an unblock request. As i have said below i am quite happy to remain blocked while the AE case continues. [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321#top|talk]]) 23:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
== Note to anyone reading this page ==
Line 163 ⟶ 166:
:You can ping people once if there's a legit reason to think they wouldn't mind; I have no concern if you ping Rich once, for instance. It's more the likelihood of you pinging people you're in conflict with, or me, repeatedly, that I'm warning against. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, i disagree with your interpretation of [[WP:INVOLVED]]. Let's consider what the text pertaining to WP:INVOLVED says: {{Quote|In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.
In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.}}
You are definitely involved because when you made your comment in my ArbCom appeal--expressing a clear bias against me, invoking ArbCom to "shut him down, and shut him down hard" (your request was ignored by them)-- you had made it in your capacity as a regular WP editor; you were not expressing your views in an administrative role since you didn't get to decide what the outcome of the case would be. Nor were you involved at any stage of my case in an Administrative capacity. [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321#top|talk]]) 20:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
:Nope, I made that comment as an admin aware of your previous disruption. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 20:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
::Let us let uninvolved Admins decide whether your comments in my ArbCom appeal were made in your capacity as a regular editor or made in your capacity of being a WP Admin. I think you will agree that we had never interacted before prior to you making those comments. The fact that the ArbCom appeal process (this was an [[WP:ARCA]] case) prohibited you from acting in your Admin capacity, the fact that you had never interacted me before making those comments (not as an Admin, not as a regular editor) makes me believe that your comments in my ArbCom appeal should be construed as being the comments of a regular WP editor. Notice these words from the first paragraph of WP:INVOLVED: {{Quote|Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.}}[[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321#top|talk]]) 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
:::You will need to formulate it as a proper unblock request. Probably a good idea to read [[WP:NOTTHEM]] first. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 20:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Sitush, There is an ongoing AE case pertaining to me. I am sure the AE Admins are scrutinizing this page. Asking for an unblock right now would complicate the AE case even more. I am quite happy to remain blocked while the AE case plays itself out. [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321#top|talk]]) 20:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
== Topic and page bans ==
Per the discussion at [[WP:AE]], please note that you are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages dealing with the realm of [[WP:ARBIPA]] (India, Pakistan and Afghanistan). You are also indefinitely banned from filing cases at Arbitration Enforcement. Your topic ban has been noted at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016]]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 01:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
{{u|Black Kite}}, thanks for the AE notification. Do i have to now make a separate appeal for lifting the indefinite block? [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321#top|talk]]) 01:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
:Yes, you do. The way to do it is to post a block appeal per the instructions in Floquenbeam's block template (the "December 2016" section above). [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 01:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen. I think i'll take a break from WP. I'll file my block appeal whenever i feel like continuing editing here. [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321#top|talk]]) 01:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
== Disillusioned by your block ==
Hi, while I came across your edits for the first time only a couple of days ago, your block has honestly left me quite disillusioned about this whole place. Even if the avenue which was chosen (AE) to raise your concerns was procedurally not the appropriate one, I am at a loss to understand that it lead to your being blocked. While it may land me in trouble going forward, I must state that the cavalier attitude displayed by some of our esteemed admins in tackling the situation was quite disappointing. You repeatedly provided your reasoning to justify filing the AE request (a. Simply no hope at all of making any headway when the other editor brazenly misrepresents sources, b. Your understanding based on prior experience (which you showed evidence for) that once the Rfc has been filed, disputed content shall not be edited). I am amazed that no admin (apart from RegentsPark) seemingly even bothered to understand/respond to this. All this despite two other editors (myself and Kashmiri) stating that they have also had issues working with the other editor. A professional approach on part of the adjudication committee would have been to suggest taking the case to a more appropriate forum (such as ANI I believe), rather than just blocking you.
In any case, there is much more to life than editing Wikipedia, and I hope you are enjoying your time away from this ! Whether you decide to come back or not, I wish you the best. [[User:Js82|Js82]] ([[User talk:Js82|talk]]) 06:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
: I said that there was no case. Soham could have withdrawn the case, or at least kept quiet so it might have been closed. Let this be a lesson, for all the watchers. Happy New Year! -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 17:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
::Kautilya3, i am going to respectfully ask you and everyone else on the "opposing side" of the AE case to refrain from commenting on this AE case on my talk page. We have different opinions about the case and you are entitled to your opinion. But please let there be no grave dancing on my talk page. [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321#top|talk]]) 17:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Js82, I am currently trying to educate myself more about how Wikipedia (WP) works. Despite trying to familiarize myself with WP:RULES, i clearly remained ignorant about how WP operates. In the finest WP criticism forum i have come across (it is not WO), someone reviewing my block has written: {{Quote|Your mistake was in assuming Wikipedia has the capacity to deal with mutli-facetted disputes, which encompass multiple people, involve personality and content issues, over long time periods.
Wikipedia cannot do that. It has the systems, sort of, but not the people.
On Wikipedia, the system works by examining personal conduct issues only, for as brief a time period as necessary, with a view to picking a winner, banning a loser, and filing all other matters, namely the conduct of other people and all matters of disputed content, in the bin marked 'let's see if anyone gives a shit about that stuff later, after we have finisished our tea, biscuits, and self congratulations'.
Floquenbeam, with his <redacted>, <redacted> and assorted other <redacted>, is quite suited to the latter, but not so much the former. Hence the outcome here, at his hands.
I cannot quite believe you expended this much time and energy on these <redacted>. But sometimes it is necessary for people to do that, before their eyes are truly opened. Use your experience to help others avoid the entire <redacted>.}} [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321#top|talk]]) 17:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
::"From now on"? No, that is actually the last straw. Your talkpage access has been revoked. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 20:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC).
== Missing your work -- come back after you cool off ==
Soham321, I have reviewed the AE case and I frankly agree with the consensus decision. However, that consensus didn't include being blocked forever from the entire site. So, once you have cooled off and have considered areas where you can improve in terms of following policy, I hope that you will ask to be unblocked. You can ask on the basis that you have contributed a lot of valuable content outside of the topic area you have been banned from, and I can attest to that. I would also recommend re-committing yourself to a more cooperative editing experience and vow not to repeat the recent mistakes. If you are concerned you cannot work on [[Muhammad Ali in India]], I would be happy to help steward your changes into article space, given the topic ban doesn't extend to your user space where you can develop a copy of the article. The bottom line is that your work is missed and the Wikipedia needs the positive side of your work. [[User:Stevietheman|<span style="color:green;">'''Stevie is the man!'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Stevietheman|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Stevietheman|Work]]</sup> 19:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
: I am afraid a topic ban extends to all pages, including the user space, talk pages etc. What you are suggesting here amounts to proxy-editing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Sadly, Soham will need to stay away from all IPA topics until he can demonstrate his good conduct somehow. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 22:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
:: [[WP:PROXYING]] says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) ''unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits''." (italics are mine) I would indeed show (via edit summary or talk page explanation) that changes are verifiable/productive, and as I'm the one who asked because of my own independent reasons, I think this is all covered. Note that Soham321 is not implicated in his work on Muhammad Ali-related articles, ''as far as I know''. Also, to say [[Muhammad Ali in India]] is a typical article among India-related articles seems a bit of a stretch. [[User:Stevietheman|<span style="color:green;">'''Stevie is the man!'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Stevietheman|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Stevietheman|Work]]</sup> 00:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
== Nomination of [[:Rana Ayyub]] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article '''[[:Rana Ayyub]]''' is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].
The article will be discussed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rana Ayyub]] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> [[User:NehalDaveND|NehalDaveND]] ([[User talk:NehalDaveND|talk]]) 07:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Muhammad Ali vs. Leon Spinks]]==
[[Image:Copyright-problem.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read [[WP:Your first article|the guide to writing your first article]].</p><p>You may want to consider using the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard]] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on [[:Muhammad Ali vs. Leon Spinks]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[WP:CSD#G12|section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion]], because the page appears to be an unambiguous [[Wikipedia:Copyright violations|copyright]] infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Muhammad_Ali_vs._Leon_Spinks_(1st_meeting). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''sentences''. This part is crucial: ''say it in your own words''. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators '''will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you ''must'' verify that externally by one of the processes explained at [[Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials]]. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see [[Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission]] for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Wikipedia's copyright policy]] for more details, or ask a question [[Wikipedia:Help desk|here]].
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by [[:Muhammad Ali vs. Leon Spinks|visiting the page]] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]]. <!-- Template:Db-copyvio-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
| |||