User talk:Carter00000/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hi Carter00000! I noticed your contributions to Portal:Current events/2022 February 22 and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Dunutubble (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbcom

I believe you misspelled Praxi's linked name, in your Arb request. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay Thank you for your reminder. The name has been amended. Carter00000 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

No one rules on content issues on Wikipedia

Others have tried to to explain this to you in various ways, I'll try a different way. There is no one who makes a ruling on content issues on Wikipedia. If an editor reverts or otherwise indicates disagreement with your changes, the solution is to discuss this somewhere, probably on the article talk page. If still find yourself unable to resolve the issue after discussion, there are various forms of WP:Dispute resolution you can try. However none of these involve admins or any party making a binding decision. Instead they all involve discussion among any parties who are willing to participate, with the ultimate goal being to come up with a consensus which resolves the dispute guided by our content policies and guidelines. Sometimes people may make mistakes or do things they shouldn't have during a dispute, however we do not sanction editors unless we feel it's the only way to avoiding repetition of this ill behaviour. I have zero idea what your dispute is about however I've seen enough to know that so far the only editor in the dispute who's behaviour has come close to being bad enough to earn a sanction is yourself. This is because despite several editors trying to explain to you that the only way you can resolve the dispute is via discussion, you've instead repeatedly tried to get admins and now arbitrators to adjudicate the content issue which is something which never happens. While we make some allowances for new editors being unfamiliar with how things work around here, you do have to be able to learn when told and so far you've not shown you can. You really need to quickly learn that what you've been trying to do is not the way to resolve the dispute since no one is going to adjudicate and instead you need to try discussing why you feel your changes improve the article, and waiting until the other side/s explain why they feel your edits do not and then discussing further as needs be until you can come to a consensus on what, if any, changes to make to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne Thank you for taking the time to explain how things are done on WP. Your effort to connect with me is appreciated. After the past few days, I understand that I may have been too hasty in my actions, and such actions were not appropriate. I have wasted the time of many people here and that is not acceptable.

Perhaps while you're here, you can help to clear up my misunderstanding with the initial issue. My initial issue was related to a revert of a series of edits, where I had corrected prose and NPOV issues. In one article, the section I corrected was obviously written in broken English knowledge and was almost incomprehensible, so I corrected the prose to make it readable.

However, this edit was reverted with a rationale saying that my correction was "Poorly written and indirect". It was on this basis which I seeked help from the ANI originally, since the illogical rationale indicated that the revert had nothing to do with the content, and was likely a conduct related issue, hence my not using the normal channels of content resolution.

At ANI, the first Admin who replied to me said it was a content issue, which I found baffling, considering the above. A second Admin agreed that the rationale seemed strange. Taking the significant amount of advice received, I am now resolving this issue at the talk page of the article in question.

Here is what I don't understand. Throughout the dispute, almost no mention of this very obvious initial issue was mentioned. I thought it would be logical that the case would be defined by this initial issue, but this was not the case. Carter00000 (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The case is defined by your unwillingness to engage about a simple content matter constructively on an article talkpage, and your unwillingness to act on advice, repeatedly given. Your edit may have merit, but you’ve drowned it in a series of over-the-top accusations of bad faith and personal attacks against those who can’t and won’t do what you want them to. Your response to Nil Einne is symptomatic of a problem with listening. Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Acroterion Thank you for your comment. Let me be clear here, I accept that I have wildly overstepped in the past few days, and have wasted the time of many people. I have now taken the advice of those who have offered it and I'm using the appropriate methods to resolve the issue.

Perhaps I should simplify my previous query. My question is this:

How can a revert, which is clearly irrelevant to the edit, be considered a content issue, and not a conduct issue? to the edit, be considered a content issue, and not a conduct issue?

Given that all the advice I have received clearly states that I failed to follow content related resolution methods, I think this is a reasonable question. Carter00000 (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The revert was relevant to the edit. The other editor identified specific concerns with the wording of your edit. Even if it's just wording, punctuation, or capitalization, all of that falls under the subject of a content issue. The only conduct issue is, was the other editor acting in good faith? Clearly, yes; I see nothing to suggest it was a bad-faith edit. —C.Fred (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

A revert of one of your edits is an indication that your edit was disagreed with - possibly mistakenly - and if you don't understand why or disagree with the revert, it is obligatory to address the revert by politely asking on the talkpage, preferably in a non-confrontational manner, and proceed from there. Once the other editor understands why you did what you did, the matter might be resolved. That is how things are worked out on Wikipedia, by cooperatively discussing. It is a bad idea to assume or assert that your edits are clearly superior, and to act on that assumption by accusing the editor that reverted of bad faith. Many times what is clear to one editor is not obvious to anybody else. As a crowdsourced project, we have many editors who appear here, convinced of their own self-evident righteousness, who won't listen to any but their own voices. Those who confront rather than cooperate don't remain with the project for very long. You've wasted a lot of your own time and that of others by making a small, perhaps mistaken disagreement into a mountain of text. Please learn to treat other editors, however mistaken you may think they are, as partners in this project, rather than antagonists. That is the foundation of WP:AGF. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

One of my edits changed a section of incomprehensible text into readable English text [1]. This edit was reverted for being "poorly written and indirect" [2]. First, any reasonable person would agree, changing text from incomprehensible to readable text is a improvement. Second, the rationale for the edit stated that I'd made the text less comprehensible, which was blatantly untrue. Third, no attempt to highlight or amend any specific sections was made, which is part of the obligations of those reverting. The second administrator replying to my ANI also noted the unreasonableness of the revert. Under these circumstances, I feel that an assumption that this was conduct-related and not content-related was warranted. Carter00000 (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the Airport Authority Hong Kong edit which seems to be at the root of things. Here's an excerpt: He reported the theft to airport staff, who did nothing but was unable to resolve the issue satisfactorily. Not only does your edit make the outcome vague (the former text made clear that the situation was unresolved because staff did nothing), but also it introduces a grammatical error by adding a comma before the clause. Two clauses do not need joined with commas when they are joined with a conjunction. The revert clearly addressed content and was good faith.

I'm going to be blunt. Do you want administrators to keep pursuing this as a matter of editor conduct? To my eyes, the only editor whose conduct needs reviewed for possible sanctions is you. —C.Fred (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)nt

First, I would like to note that you have completely ignored the example in my last comment. Instead of addressing the example you bought up another edit. However, I do realize that the edit is one of the three edits addressed in my ANI. Second, I think that is it highly unlikely that a member staff in a airport would do "nothing", indeed the report says the staff "allegedly took no action", which would indicate the staff at least tried to assist the complaint, but was unable to resolve the issue satisfactorily, hence the use of the word "allegedly" in a report. My grammatical error is noted.

Please also note that I am willing to submit to a full review of my conduct should any Administrator deem it necessary. Carter00000 (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever considered the possibility that the person who reverted you made a mistake? Did that warrant two visits to ANI and an AE case? The problem here is with your disproportionate reaction to a possibly mistaken revert, not with the revert. Your continuing attempts to litigate this indicate a continuing problem with not listening to advice on how to resolve minor problems. Your grammatical corrections are minor, and the only really problematic part with Citobun's revert is the restoration "which is a lie." You could easily have pointed out the mistake to Citobun on the article talkpage, which I note you still haven't edited. Citobun clearly made a mistake. Stop treating a minor issue as a battle you must win, and stop treating every disagreement as a conflict in which you must prevail. Acroterion (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Guess I can stop composing my acculturation/orientation post. @Carter00000: Please read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:BRD, WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION, and information I give users about edit warring when I decline to unblock them (the rest is germane.), and apply these moving forward. Thanks. Please note my use of "please" and "thanks." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Please note that I have been polite in all my correspondence, which is more then I can say for some of the editors I have interacted with, even taking into account my actions. For the others, I have clearly indicated my understanding of the inappropriateness of my actions in previous comments in this thread and have pledged to ensure my future actions appropriate. Carter00000 (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

First, I would like to note that you have completely ignored the example in my last comment. Instead of addressing the example you bought up another edit. However, I do realize that the edit is one of the three edits addressed in my ANI. Second, I cannot accept that that Citobun made a mistake, at least for the example I gave, given the demonstrated incongruity of the rationale with the revert. However, your comments on proper resolution of conflicts are noted. Carter00000 (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I think a lot of us have done reverts like that, where we "threw the baby out with the bathwater". Yes, you made some improvements to the article, but I see some clearly bad grammar and mechanics, and I can see where Citobun legitimately feels that things were diluted or presented indirectly. I am willing to assume good faith that Citobun's revert was done in a positive spirit; what is lacking is any constructive attempt by to you contact them, on their talk page or the article's, to get clarification or to ask how to refine your edit. WP:AGF is a core behavioural guideline; editors ignore it at their own peril, and you ignored it by jumping straight to WP:ANI over a simple, good-faith, content-driven revert. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Noted on your rationale, which is well accepted. Following the result of the past few days and at the urging of editors, I have opened a discussion on the talk page earlier today. Carter00000 (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

We follow what the sources say.

I have reverted this edit of yours, as not properly following the source cited. [3] You would do well to take note of advice you have already been given, and not give misleading edit summaries about 'Improved wording' where you have clearly changed the meaning of content: in this case, a change concerning a statement made by a named individual, who clearly referred to "excuses" about disciplinary action, and not just 'affecting' civil servants (for reference, the source is archived here [4]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. In future I will ensure to follow the guideline you have mentioned as per your original comment. Carter00000 (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

The recent request for Arbitration to which you were listed as a party has been declined, as the Committee felt it was premature. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 15:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators don't arbitrate content. In fact, they're prohibited from doing so. ANI is not a content mediation board. Cullen was correct to point that out. Now that you know this, you will seek resolution via dispute resolution methods, or substantive talkpage discussion, respecting other editoers. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Marine Department (Hong Kong) 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You could have been blocked out of the ArbComm report. Consider this a final warning, or you will be blocked. Star Mississippi 20:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@user:Star Mississippi, please indicate what "disruptive editing" you refer to. Furthermore, if you feel there is a issue with my conduct, please take your concerns to an appropriate venue such as WP:ANI. Otherwise, please cease making such allegations. Carter00000 (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The entirety of your conduct at the Request for Arbitration and interaction with other editors is disruptive. There is no requirement that I take you to ANI. If you continue in this vein, you will be blocked. Star Mississippi 03:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@user:Star Mississippi, in that case, you are welcome to proceed to "blocking" me. Carter00000 (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@user:Star Mississippi, Please note that this is a warning to you to cease the posting of llegitimate warnings on my talk page.

You recently made a post on my page warning me to refrain from further "disruptive editing". In the warning summary and upon being questioned on examples specific activities, you cited the example of the recent arbcom case, which is clearly not "disruptive editing".

Upon being challenged, you threatened to take executive action to unilaterally ban me for the arbcom case. I'd like to remind you that two arbiters expressly commented on the inappropriateness of this course of action.

In future, please refrain from posting illegitimate warnings under false pretexts on my talk page. Carter00000 (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The warnings were neither illegitimate nor under false pretext. Two arbiters commented on whether you should be blocked. One said if you went back to ANI, you should be blocked for it. That is a pretty clear indicator that your actions at ANI are inappropriate. The second suggested following due process before blocking you, and part of due process is to warn you for your conduct. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Chief Executive of Hong Kong

It didn't get posted and your nomination was closed a bit too early by a cheerful fake scientist, but you did your best. I don't care if the system counts that as a loss, you won where I think it matters. If you come across any other underappreciated Chinese news in the future (mainland or not, political or not and recurrent or not), don't let this mixed past performance hinder your pursuit of better results, and have a nice day! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk Oof. No ping? Meow... Cheers! Fakescientist8000 04:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Fakescientist8000, I save my pings for when I'm really going to need them. For more self-aware users, a vague allusion is often call enough. Anyway, yes, meow and cheers, better late than never! Not knocking your close, by the way. It was just before I had a chance to speak, so I'm butthurt, but that's on me for not hurrying up. Keep up the administrative work! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk Thank you for your kind words, they mean a lot to me.

While the ITN nomination was not posted in the end, I was quite happy with how much attention it got. Given that this was the first time I had nominated something for ITN, I had been expecting less attention.

Once again, I thank you for your words of encouragement. I hope to be a regular contributor to ITN in the future. I actually first started reading Wikipedia because of the current events section, as I felt that it gave a very balanced overview of the news. Carter00000 (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fakescientist8000 Thank you for helping to moderate the ITN nomination thread. Carter00000 (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

My friend, you are always welcome. Feel free to continue to stop by ITN by helping nominate, update, and review articles up for discussion. They're always needed! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Invitations

On the advice note above, I wanted to invite you to the Monkeypox Outbreak Task Force, which I started from the WikiProject of Current Events. A task force is similar to a WikiProject, with the exception that a larger WikiProject (in this case, the Current Events WikiProject) "host" the task force. The Monkeypox Outbreak Task Force’s goal is to improve any and all articles relating to the new outbreak.

Also, if you have any interest in weather articles, WikiProject of Weather is always needing help with new articles being created every month (that either just happened or are ongoing) and some just longer list-style articles that are updated every day or every few days, like the articles around Tornadoes of 2022.

Just wanted to drop those two specific invitations, but there are hundreds of WikiProjects which all have articles that need improvement. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

An arbitration case to which you were a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The declining arbitrators felt that the request was premature. For the Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Some Advice

Hey Carter00000. I wanted to give you some advice. I would highly recommend you work on improving an article or draft and not be in the center of anything involving admins. If you have not read all the comments in the ArbCom case you filed, one thing is obvious, that if accepted, there is a high chance of a boomerang effect happening for you to help enforce no more drama. I am not sure what your interests are, but I would suggest looking into something where you can stay out of the spotlight for a while to avoid any possible boomerang effects from all the “drama” caused recently by two Arbcom filing and at least 1 AN/I. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Meh. Three ANI's. But who's counting -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem with your attempts is that you are trying too hard. If you want to get your point across, spoonfeeding it to other editors will trigger defensive reactions. Nxavar (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Friendly notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk Noted and thank you for your notification on the above information. Carter00000 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Conduct at WP:ITNC

At WP:ITNC, you've about eight times made arguments for excluding any link to Uyghur genocide in the blurb, many of which are essentially the same argument being repeatedly restated. These include:

1. 08:41, 1 September 2022 The relevance of the bolded article is also in question, given the scope of the report and the fact that the report make no mention of genocide.
2. 12:43, 1 September 2022 The word "genocide" does not appear anywhere in the report and the allegations don't come close to that either
3. 13:29, 1 September 2022 I think that the link to the article is already questionable, given that the reports scope is on counter-terrorism strategies, while "Uyghur genocide" implies much more serious actions.
4. 14:59, 1 September 2022 the scope of the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism related operations of the government, and makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all,
5. 15:59, 1 September 2022 I would like to reiterate that the report makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all.
6. 15:13, 2 September 2022 the scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism & extremism related operations of the government, making no references to genocide, or include the word "genocide" at all. ... Given the above, it seem to be a significant exaggeration of the facts for the link featured in the blurb to be "Uyghur genocide".
7. 16:55, 2 September 2022 Given that background information already exists in the report article as previously noted, suggest to remove the link to the now redundant Uyghur genocide article, as per my previous concerns on the accurate reflection and the fact that genocide in not alleged or mentioned in the report.
8. 09:01, 3 September 2022 Given that background information exists in the bolded article, the link to the Uyghur genocide article is now redundant. Per my previous concerns on accurate reflection of the report contents, and the fact that no genocide is alleged or mentioned in the report, the link to the article makes the blurb WP:SYNTH, as it combines material in a way which is not reflected by the report. Furthermore the blurb is WP:SENSATIONALISM, as it effectively presents allgations of potential actions as a genocide, which is a very large escalation in magnitude.

Please avoid repeatedly making the same argument over and over in a discussion, especially regarding the nexus article of an area under general sanctions. You were notified about these sanctions before the fifth time you stated your same basic argument that I have listed above, though you have continued to repeatedly thump this argument over and over subsequently. It is perfectly fine to respond to new points that people bring up, but in making several comments please remember to avoid bludgeoning the discussion.

Additionally, please avoid making substantial edits to your comments that others have responded to, as you did in this edit. Doing so can deprive replies of their original context and is generally frowned upon. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Note

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have moved this request to WP:AE. Black Kite (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to a sanction

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

indefinite topic ban from Xinjiang, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned this AE thread

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that topic. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Vandal IP

Hi, Carter. I've blocked the small range 128.119.202.192/26, which covers both of the IPs you mentioned at WP:AIV. Let's hope they don't have access to more. If you see further vandalism that appears to come from the same person, feel free to take it directly to me if you like. Bishonen | tålk 16:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, thank you very much for your assistance and I will let you know if there are any further issues relating to the IPs. Carter00000 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Enough

Your latest edits on Wikipedia show a clear harassment (WP:HA) against me. Repeated, serious, provocative, unjustified, conscious and documentable. Please be advised that I'm considering the measures offered by Wikipedia to stop you, politely, from acting as you are acting. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

2023

Hello. Now that 2022 is ending I've been taking a look at my activity during this year and frankly the level of discrepancy is notorious and we have even clashed. I only wish that this new year we can collaborate with seriousness and, above all, comradeship. Let's make it easy. Happy New Year. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Chinese balloon article

When you changed the article 2023 China balloon incident to 2023 Chspy balloon incident, it was unhelpful and appeared to be vandalism. Also, when you change an articles name, you MUST give a valid reason in the edit summary. Please do not vandalize pages on Wikipedia, and always use the edit summary when you make valid changes. Juneau Mike (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Juneau Mike,

I sincerely apologize for the change. I had typed the part of the change on my mobile then navigated away from the page to check the proper policy for a page move, given that I have never made such a move before. I was unaware that the action had been performed.

Thank you very much for helping to move the page back. Carter00000 (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, Carter00000! I hope you're doing well! I just wanted to come by and tell you that the page, which you have accidentally created from the move, has been nominated for deletion and deleted. I'm happy you're able to learn from your mistake. Please make sure to be careful during editing. Cheers! - Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wikiexplorationandhelping, thank you for helping to clean-up my mistake. In future I will ensure that I am more careful when moving/editing pages. Carter00000 (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Current Event Feb 17

Hello! It seems there is a disagreement regarding the claim of the taking of a village in Ukraine for this day. Personally, I do not see how this is considered notable enough for the current events page. Not only is it reporting on a claim made by a paramilitary organization, but the village itself is very small - the Wikipedia page for it is not even two days old, and was created by the same user who added this event to the current events tab. If you can advise on your position, I hope we can come to some sort of understanding. Barbarbarty (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi Carter00000. Just letting you know that an edit war is breaking the three-revert rule (3RR). I reverted you once on Portal:Current events/2023 May 10. In future, please study Wikipedia's guidelines more in depth before leaving a warning threatening to block me. Thanks. GWA88 (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

As per your linked page, edit warring is defined as "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions" and is technically the case once each side has reverted each other once. The 3RR rule is a threshold for the level edit warring, where you will almost certainly be blocked. As per the page "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". Carter00000 (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

AlanS^talk 01:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kai robert (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Carter00000 attempted to censor information regarding the Kakhovka Dam breach, despite the source being solid. I have reported you for attempting to obfuscate news regarding this event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Carter00000_censorship_of_important_and_pertinent_dam_breach_information

June 2023 edit warring on current events portal

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Portal:Current events/2023 June 26. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You have now been reverted by multiple editors on this issue. Please stop removing information without consensus to do so. GWA88 (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You have definitely crossed WP:3RR on this, and could be taken to WP:ANEW for it. You started a discussion, discussion and Consensus went against you, so you ignored it and edit warred. This is essentially unacceptable behavior from any editor. Any more on this, and you will be reported. And you can expect that if you try this in the future at Portal:Current events that you will be reported as a pattern had now been established. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply. GWA88 & IJBall, I've replied at Portal_talk:Current_events/2023_June_26. Carter00000 (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023 edit warring on current events portal

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Portal:Current events/2023 July 5. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GWA88 (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GWA88 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

2023

Hey, you seem to somewhat genuinely care about the 2023 article which seems to be undergoing a chronic period of neglect in recent weeks. Some major events that have not been added for some inexplicable reason to the events list are: - French riots (contained to one country largely but irrelevant due to size and scope, similar domestic unrest was already added for Israel and other countries) - Collapse of Dutch government and resignation of Mark Rutte (again similar entries have been added for Vietnam and/or Thailand earlier in the year - Launch of Euclid telescope (to study dark matter) - Meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania to discuss Ukraine's accession to NATO (absolute nobrainer) - Canadian wildfires (affecting large swathes of 2 large countries and also affecting the atmosphere and environment

These 3 events alone should absolutely be added to the article, there are several other events which don't come immediately to mind that are strong contenders for inclusion in the events list. 2.99.68.104 (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Great additions, Carter. Might I also suggest the Euclid telescope launch to study dark matter on July 1 and the ongoing Cerberus heatwave (as well as the global average temperature records being shattered in July 2023). The US supplying Ukraine with cluster munitions also seems highly relevant considering their status around the world and the controversial nature of it.

These both seem like surefire additions.

Some other suggestions are: Launch of Chandrayaan-3. Discover of Geneina mass grave in Sudan. 2023 NATO Summit in Vilnius. New Zealand free trade agreement with the EU. Elton John performs final concert in Stockholm, Sweden. US destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile, the elimination of the last known chemical weapons stockpile on Earth. The Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 in Malaysia. 2023 Western North America Heatwave (over 100 deaths in Mexico alone). 2.99.68.104 (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces (Portal) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2023 (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).

Carter00000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As per WP:GAB I submit this unblock request to show that:

• The block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
• That the block is no longer necessary because of my understanding of the blocking purpose.
• I will not engage in the actions further, have reviewed the relevant WP:PAG, and will make productive contributions accordingly.

I was reported at WP:AN3 for two incidents of edit warring. I was blocked for edit warring and unwillingness to disengage from conflict.

Unwillingness to disengage from conflict

I agree with the closing statement that words failed above already. I had come to the same conclusion earlier, and proactively sought assistance to close the discussion, given the time elapsed without admin input. As the discussion referenced prior cases handled by Daniel Case, I posted a neutral request on his talk page to request the closure.

My last comment on the AN3 discussion was on the same day as the request for closure, after making the request. I did not further comment on the discussion afterwards, despite other participants commenting multiple times over the subsequent days. I had recognized that words failed above already, that the tone of the conversation had deteriorated past reasonable discourse, and disengaged from the conversation.

Given that I recognized that the discussion had deteriorated, voluntarily disengaged from the conversation, and protectively sought assistance to close the discussion, I feel that a block on the grounds of unwillingness to disengage from conflict was both not necessary in the first place and no longer necessary to prevent damage.

Edit warring

As noted in the closing statement, the incidents in the AN3 filing was frivolous and merited no action. Daniel Case also affirmed this after further explanation from me. The block was primarily placed due to the issue of failure to disengage as addressed above.

A key point of the dispute is the need for discussion during WP:DR, instead of simply reverting the other person in the dispute. I have repeatedly tried to encourage the parties involved to comply with this point.

The reverts cited in the AN3 filing were related to my removal of material with contested notability and my subsequent attempts to encourage compliance with WP:ONUS through discussion.

Incident 1

I started a discussion on notability, based on the presented sources. While I was overruled 3-1 during the discussion, this was not a consensus. None of the participants engaged in the discussion, simply forcing the matter through, then refused to discuss the matter further. It was frustration at this which led me to revert beyond 3RR. I ceased reverting and apologized after being warned. Despite being stonewalled, I compromised and added to the material to increase its notability, resolving my initial concerns on sufficient notability for inclusion.

As per WP:BLOCK, blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. The policy further states that once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not appropriate.

I believe that a block on me on the grounds of edit warring would fall under WP:NOPUNISH, given the breaking of 3RR was a few weeks ago. Considering the time which has passed and my good faith actions to compromise during incident, it is clear that the risk of present disruption from me has clearly ended and a block on me at this point would be blocking retrospectively which would be usually not appropriate.

Incident 2

I started a discussion on notability. I did not break 3RR and self-reverted immediately after a reasonable rationale was given for the inclusion of the contested material by a third user.

I assert that a block on the grounds of edit warring was non-compliant with WP:PAG, and was both not necessary in the first place and no longer necessary to prevent damage.

Action Plan

I accept that excessive reverting and edit warring does not resolve disputes, even when encountering non-compliance with WP:PAG. As the closing statement noted, one should not rapidly revert disputed items. Immediate dialogue is better than dialogue later.

I fully intend to comply with this. After reviewing WP:DDE, I offer the following action plan based on the guideline. In future, upon making a revert, I will immediately start a discussion and invite the reverted user, instead of after reverting multiple times. In case the user is unresponsive, I will address the user directly on their talk page. If this fails, I will seek external or administrator assistance.

Conclusion

Given my above explanation for my actions and proposed action plan, and taking into account with my previous role in starting discussions during the cited incidents, I request that my block be lifted. I feel the block is no longer necessary to prevent damage.

Further, as demonstrated above, I feel the block was not necessary in the first place. I request the block be invalidated and noted in the unblock entry on my block log accordingly. Carter00000 (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You can just stay out of the portal namespace for another week; there's plenty of other things to do on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:03, 16 July 2023 (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.

I haven't mentioned the three-revert rule anywhere. You have edit warred on multiple Portal pages, with the diffs having a range of 10 days ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]), and I blocked you from editing the namespace for 14 days to prevent this from continuing. There are currently 6,683,373 articles you can edit freely – all of them. I recommend doing so instead of trying to get the block "invalidated". The amount of wikilawyering present in the unblock request alone is sign enough for me that "unwillingness or inability to disengage from the conflict" is still an accurate description of the issue that led to the block. I would like to encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms by keeping up the decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank your for your reply and further explaining your rationale for the block.

I've explained those diffs which you have included in your reply (presented as two separate incidents) in my unblock request. I've demonstrated that in each incident, I've made attempts at "encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms", by starting the discussion each time and compromising, despite the onus being on the other party to demonstrate notability before reinserting the contested content.

I've further presented an action plan, committing to abide by WP:DDE, which is the policy underpinning what you suggested in your closing statement.

Carter00000 (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Something else than all the warnings and red block boxes. Feel free to remove these, by the way; they're not meant to be a wall of shame. If you prefer archiving to removal like me, feel free to copy the code from my user talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree,

It's good to hear from you, and I thank you for your kind words. Thank you for the beer as well; it's the first WikiLove message I've received on Wikipedia, so it's definitely something special for me.

I've added archiving to my page per your recommendation, something I probably should have done a while ago, as my talk page was getting quite large. I copied the code from your page and made some changes to the code to fit my needs.

According to WP:OWNTALK, I am aware that archiving is preferred, and critical comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Instead of deleting critical comments, I want to follow the sprit of this guideline by creating an archive.

Thank you again for your kind words and recommendation, and I hope to see you around.Carter00000 (talk)

@ToBeFree, Thank you for helping to make edits to the configuration for the archiving on my talk page. Carter00000 (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the archiving is now working without issue, with the bot having just made the the first move of the conversations. Carter00000 (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

In regards to removing an event from ongoing events

Why did you remove 2023 Syrian protests from ongoing events. As far as I know, it is a significant international event that has been reported by major international news sources. The mile stone is that the event is starting its second week in a row. CatmanBw (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@CatmanBw, Thank you for your message and for taking the time to discuss the edit with me.

I agree that the protests are internationally significant and have been reported by a range of news sources. I note an entry has been placed on Portal:Current events/2023 August 20, marking the start of the protests.

However, I feel that the entry which you placed on Portal:Current events/2023 August 27 does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. If you look at the items placed in the portal, most of the items cover a long period of time, with updates only being made only when a significant event happens in relation to those items.

An event entering its second week is only a chronological milestone, without any significant event to make it worthy of inclusion. If we followed this practice, we would have to do the same for the other items, and the portal would quickly become filled with these milestones, which do not impart any significant information. Carter00000 (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. CatmanBw (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Contentious Topics

• @Carter00000 You have a habit of removing news in the Portal:Current_events and marking these edits as contentious. You have not put any references to rebut the edits as such. You put generalized terms in your summaries without much substance. You probably have a left-leaning bias in that can be found in many of the editors. I have been editing Wikipedia off and on for the last 18 years. Many of my fellows editors have come and gone. I hope this clarifies argument here. You should stick to facts and not give me 101 rules of Wikipedia as what you did pasting it in my talk page. F2Milk (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  A related matter: please remove the commas at the ends of the diff urls in your AE filing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your notification. I have removed the commas at the ends of the diff urls in my AE filing. Carter00000 (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for continued edit warring on Portal:Current events subpages, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 month from certain namespaces (Portal). You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I apologise if this comes somewhat out of the blue, but you have a habit of edit-warring on P:CE subpages. I see you've been warned and blocked for this very recently and yet the pattern of your edits is to make controversial re-writes to blurbs and enforce your preferred wording. I believe this block is necessary to prevent further disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell, may I ask which diffs your are referring to when you mention controversial re-writes to blurbs and enforce your preferred wording" ? I also note I've been blocked as a AE action, may I ask under which AE decision am I blocked under? Carter00000 (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, I see my block log indicates I was blocked under the Palestine-Israel decision. I also note you protected Portal:Current events/2023 October 8. Is my block related to that page? Carter00000 (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Now that things have calmed down somewhat, I'll be happy to lift the block if you'll agree not to revert anything related to the Arab-Israeli Conflict until the block would have expired. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your follow-up on this case. I would be grateful to accept your offer for unblocking, subject to a restriction on reverts related to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, until the block would have expired. For clarity, would the restriction cover the exemptions under WP:3RRNO & WP:ARBECR? Carter00000 (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes those exemptions apply. I'm not so worried about the letter of the law as I am about the spirit, and for the record the restriction only applies to the portal namespace. I've lifted the block. You're welcome to remove or archive this thread if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Noted on the above. Thank you again for ending the block early, I am grateful for it. Carter00000 (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Reverting sourced edits to a contentious topic

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by OldMan (talk • contribs) 12:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)