Jump to content

User talk:Notabede

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello Notabede, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Notabede, good luck, and have fun. – --    L o g  X   16:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing talk page comments

[edit]

Please do not change talk page comments after they have been responded to. This is only one instance of several of you doing that lately. Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This was not a "talk page" comment but ANI. ANI is for adjudication by Admins after hearing involved editors. If you see the time sequence, no Admin or involved editor had responded when I made this particular edit. If, however, you are referring to this [1], my edits are self-explanatory.Notabede (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is incorrect in numerous dimensions. Toddst1 (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the sort of vague and non-specific tone you have been consistently been using for me to evade explaining your BIASED actions.Notabede (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  

This and this followed by your continued reversions are just plain bullying and an attempt to WP:OWN yet another article. Toddst1 (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Note that the second diff was added at this timestamp. Toddst1 (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am asking to be unblocked because the other editor (a relatively new editor and SPA for this article) whose edits I reverted (only twice) in good faith has admitted [2] that he repeatedly reverted me with the clear intention of not engaging in any discussion with me. He also had misinformed notions that my reverts constituted vandalism, including because I don't have a "user page" etc.

In my defence, I have always attempted to engage/inform the other editor about my reverts of his work through clear and specific edit summaries explaining my distinct actions [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Before doing this I had clearly informed the other editor [11] what I proposed to do and why I was doing it, and that I wished to discuss the article to improve it. It is pertinent that I had previously edited the article [12] to remove some blatant copyvios 2 months before this incident. After I finished my aforesaid series of reverts, I left a courtesy message [13] indicating that both of us should discuss on the article talk page to achieve consensus per BRD.

The other editor, however, simply reverted me (without any discussion or explanation) [14] citing "vandalism" as his reason. To cover his tracks (!) he then immediately "cleaned up" [15] my notes to him on his talk page. Seeing as he was a newbie (as compared to me) I left this warning against edit warring [16] on his talk page which clearly gave him links to the Wikipedia policies (including WP:Vandalism) and proceeded to revert expecting that he would discuss on the article talk page as I asked him to do.

My edit summary for the controversial 2nd revert [17] for, which I am presumably blocked, clearly says I was proceeding in terms of BRD, and I was discounting the immediately prior revert made by the other user as a GOOD FAITH revert, and I was again requesting discussion on the article talk page (which unfortunately is redlinked since I use a shortcut wikilink). Once again the other editor quickly reverted me without any discussion [18] citing "vandalism". In fact he had again cleaned up all evidence of my warnings from his talk page [19] before restoring his work. He immediately sought assistance from 2 other editors painting me in an unfavorable light and disclaimed his "ownership" of the article [20], [21].

I immediately warned the other editor on his talk page [22] (which the other editor has again deleted - so presumably he is aware of its contents) indicating I would be seeking page protection and WP:DR for this edit war, but was then utterly shocked to find that it was instead I who had been blocked for "bullying" and attempting to "own" the article and after the other editor had clearly written "... I don't want to get involved in any discussion with this user ...". (selectively excerpted and emphasized).

There is also a serious issue about the motives of the other editor and his past behaviour. I reverted his edits for CopyVio, Original Research, Improper sources and Synthesis, close paraphrasing etc. I discover User:Seabuckthorn has been previously repeatedly warned against these very same practices on his talk page for several other articles by many other editors, diffs of which are [23], [24], [25], [26] etc.

GROUNDS: I have always adhered to Wikipedia policies and have the best interests of the project at heart, now and in the future, and to always improve the encyclopedia for other users in a collaborative way through proper discussions. I have also never ever edit-warred or been blocked or had my 3RR reduced to a lesser level like 0RR or 1RR. I acknowledge that whereas the blocking Admin acted quickly to prevent "disruption" to the Wikipedia project, my 'lis' is simply that he went after the wrong editor [27] and this block record will be used against me in future. Notabede (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well here is your neutral opinion. Toddst1, has tried his best to help you understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and you are suffering a case of I didn't hear that. Primarily, you are not entitled to 3 reverts before you get blocked, that is made crystal clear at WP:3RR and in the second paragraph at the top of that page. And yes, any uninvolved admin can block any editor for edit warring on any page at their discretion. Wikipedia works on consensus, that means you need to discuss changes which are controversial or are contested on the talk page rather than reverting them or editing the page further. Until you understand these basic principles I don't see any admin unblocking you. Also the tone you are using and accusations you are making suggests a battleground attitude to editing Wikipedia, which will definitely mean you are not at all likely to get unblocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:17, 6 December 2013 (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.

@User:Toddst1. As I am considering appealing this block, could I have your brief comments to the factors.
  1. Is WP:BRD applicable, or not, to the string of BOLD edits by users like Seabuckthorn and RaviShyam_Bangalore who POV push on low profile articles and get away undetected ?
  2. Was I wrong to revert these BOLD edits, clearly mentioning BRD (which is not official policy but voluntary) as my basis ?
  3. Was I wrong to leave several messages on the talk pages of the BOLD editors clearly warning and advising them not to "edit war" and provide them wikilinks to the applicable policies ?
  4. Was I uncivil at any point ?
  5. Is it not required to warn other editors against edit warring as a prelude to seeking WP:DR.
  6. Who is going to address the massive copy-vios and extensive usage of self-referencing self published primary sourcing on MNREGA inserted by the other editor?
  7. Did I not clearly inform the other editor what I intended to do against his repeated personal attack on me [28]?
  8. Did I not 'always explain WHY I was removing /reverting content ?
  9. Is the 3RR policy to be selectively applied or is it a bright line rule ?
  10. Were my edits at MNREGA 'vandalism' or 'AGF' edits ?Notabede (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to respond to this laundry list of questions. Perhaps you should take this time to review many of the policies which you incorrectly refer to and try to understand that you need to cooperate with other editors here. Toddst1 (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very Well. I shall not appeal this unfair block as its basis is unclear. I would however, request you to kindly closely examine my complaint to you as an Admin that MNREGA is presently littered with massive copy-vios and closely paraphrased text from self published self referencing primary sources inserted by a SPA - and which policy requires to be deleted on sight (as I did).Notabede (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly also take note of my complaint that the Wikipedia project is being misused for election activities/propaganda to promote India's Congress government of Sonia Gandhi and Man Mohan Singh by inserting their photographs prominently for this scheme, starting from about 25 Oct 2013 till today 4.Dec.2013 just when 4 crucial Indian States went to the polls. As Wikipedia is accessible in these states, such biased repeated insertions from US soil/servers by anonymous authors may constitute interference in India's sovereignity and democracy. <--- This is NOT any kind of legal threat, but just an observation about the POV pushing editors and their motives. And FYI as I have not contributed even 1 word to either Aadhaar or MNREGA, I fail to see how I can have ownership issues.Notabede (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems he only had 2 reverts and that is not warring [29] And all reasons were given by himLihaas (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, you are clearly not familiar with Notabede's history [30] and don't understand that Notabede is not entitled to 3 reverts. Having been blocked yourself several times for edit warring, I would have expected you to have learned more about WP:EW before commenting or continuing the EW. Toddst1 (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1. Please see your own diff. As pointed out by Lihaas I am clearly entitled to know why I am not entitled to 3 reverts. Especially in light of the following:-
I have never edit warred on Aadhaar or any other article on Wikipedia. The situation there, like the situation at MNREGA is that I reverted the BOLD edits of an editor who in a short period of time added HUGE amounts of controversial "highly POV" (your words) text without any community oversight. In neither case did I add even 1 word of my own to either article, I simply reverted to a prior stable version which would better inform Wikipedia's readers about the subject. In Aadhar I made 3 reverts over 6 days (2 of them were to undo the mischief of a user who was later indefinitely blocked for that very POV pushing and promotion). In Aadhar, responding to your diff, I immediately applied for page protection (as per your suggestion) and got it. The words of the Admin who protected the page [31] show that I did the right thing to stop User:Jayadevp13 who was acting as a MEATPuppet for the blocked user. Later User:Jayadevp13 filed a completely frivolous (your words) ANI report against me. SO there is absolutely no basis for you to say that I edit warred on Aadhar - and you had absolutely no authority then to take away my right to 3RR which is a hard and fast rule by leaving a warning on my talk page. As an Admin you should know that is not the way Wikipedia works.
In the case of MNREGA as Lihaas said I only had 2 reverts (for both of which I left messages on the other editor's talk page which he read and ignored. 3RR is a hard and fast / bright line policy until I am put under 0RR or 1RR by either Arbcom or AE or EDR or General Sanctions (??) - possibly "Discretionary sanctions". You have absolutely no case for applying the last one, and by blocking me here you have clearly misused your Admin tools.
Lastly, kindly see the response [32] of the other editor User:Seabuckthorn, and see who has ownership issues with the article and as an Admin you are obliged to explain why the other user can twice get away with ignoring my clear warnings to him to avoid edit warring and he can repeatedly revert (without any talk) saying I was a "vandal" (the 2nd time he did so it implied I was acting without good faith - which is a personal attack).
NB:, what is the Wikipedia community doing about the massive copy-vios (incl. closely paraphrased text) inserted by the other editor on MNREGA which I have complained about to you ? Notabede (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this [33]Notabede (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you really don't understand:

Perhaps you should try to understand the basics of the policies you're trying to use in your WP:Wikilawyering. Toddst1 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Notabede: As I repeatedly told you earler, I was not acting on behalf of RB but for the content in the article. The main reason why I posted a report of you on ANI was to garner admin attention to what you are doing. I got it what I wanted. Initially I didn't think of asking any sort of punishment for you but later when Toddst1 asked what I wanted only then did I asked that you be banned. But I was unsuccessful in that attempt. - Jayadevp13 06:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Request reason:

  • I have benefited from this break to improve my future editing at Wikipedia

I realize now I must edit in cooperation with other editors, especially by use of article talk pages (and not rely on edit summaries no matter how detailed they are) to achieve consensus and not turn Wikipedia into a battlefield. I realise now if consensus fails to emerge, Wikipedia has dispute mediation pages as well as page protection features. I acknowledge I was wrong to argue repeatedly with 'Toddst1' who was trying to educate me. I realize that 3RR does not entitle any editor to a fixed number of reverts when it comes to edit warring. Notabede (talk)

Accept reason:

Editor appears to be acting in good faith. May be reblocked if problems recur. Happy holidays. Toddst1 (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and BRD

[edit]

in seriatim

  • I am 'entitled' to 3RR unless it is explicitly taken away. Please cite specific policy on this if you disagree.
  • I am aware that BRD has 1R in it. Please see [34]. User:Seabuckthorn's revert without discussion was a "hostile' act. However, as he was seemed a new user who didn't know what 'vandalism' means at Wikipedia (as contra its ordinary usage), I offered him a fresh BRD opportunity (see edit summary) clearly citing Good Faith, with prior links to Vandalism, Edit War and Article Ownership on his talk page.
  • When he has now already admitted that he twice reverted me with no intention of discussing (for whatever reasons he may have had), you ought to have let the 3RR play out as it would in any case have gone for page protection as well as WP:DR before my 4th revert, and he would have been blocked instead of me (yes really).
  • I concur that edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion, which is why I do not rely upon them for my unblock defence after the 1R stage. You will note that I immediately started a new article talk page section for discussion for my 2nd revert. Which again was ignored in a hostile manner by the other editor. Also see BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. Note: The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.
  • If you had applied the rules fairly, then 'Seabuckthorn' would have been blocked after his first hostile act, and this situation would not have arisen. And lets be perfectly candid, the only reason this situation arose,is because you were watching me like a hawk after the Aadhar incidents with an itchy trigger finger.
  • Repeatedly characterising my talk comments as 'Wikilawyering' (even if couched as advice) probably contravenes NPA.[35] Notabede (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your specific citation is in the link in the above section. Note that links to this page have been provided to you numerous times and you have been informed that you do not have such an entitlement. Given your persistence in asserting such an entitlement, I have changed your block to indefinite as there is no indication that your disruption will cease after the expiration of the 48-hour block, rather quite the contrary. Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have not read your own link carefully. It is part of a sentence/clause which applies after an edit war is reported to ANI by any user. The exception does not grant any wandering isolated Admin the power to arbitrarily impose sanctions wherever and whenever he chooses in the face of a bright-line rule. The sentence "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times" is a direct consequence of a prior report of edit warring being made by any user on AN3. The construction of the exception clause to 3RR makes it very clear that an admin can only apply sanctions on editors who have not broken 3RR on pages where active edit warring or recent violations of 3RR has been reported to AN3 - for example to block disruptive editing by SOCKS, meat puppetry, IP edits etc. during edit wars. By no stretch was MNREGA at that stage.Notabede (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're wrong and that's why you're indefinitely blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the alternative interpretation of "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule." at the start of WP:AN3 would mean that the AN3 notice board is to report only those instances of active edit warriors on pages where recent 3RR has occurred. see [36].Notabede (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should also know that one of the essential principles of "natural justice" is that once an allegation of "bias" is preferred (whether rightly or wrongly), the adjudicator is required to stop further actions till the issue is decided by somebody else.Notabede (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A personal note

[edit]

I have replied to you at Talk:Aadhaar. You please continue the discussion. I thought I tell you that I would only be back on Monday. I have an exam to prepare for. So trying to stay away from Wikipedia. Regards. - Jayadevp13 07:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocked Notabede (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just came here to see what was happening during my break. Too many things occurred in these two days. I was thinking that since you are indefinitely blocked (for now, who knows that you might be unblocked) I am closing the discussion at Talk:Aadhaar and reverting your last edit to Aadhaar (with Toddst1's permission). We can start a fresh new conversation once you return. I may or may not see your reply soon. - Jayadevp13 06:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since my proposal got no opposition, I am doing it. - Jayadevp13 07:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next time it would be better if you start a discussion on the talk page and if consensus favours removing the content then only remove them. - Jayadevp13 12:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Report of continuing the Edit War by User:Quadell on MNREGA

[edit]

I am formally highlighting that User:Quadell, the mentor of User:Seabuckthorn reverted [37] another user (Lihaas) shortly after his mentee was warned for edit warring [38] on article MNREGA. Whereas every other user who has contributed recently to this page has been warned by Admin:Toddst1, User:Quadell strangely has not. As both editors have extensively collaborated for this article's [39] Good Article assessment, any reasonable and neutral person would say that User:Quadell, while reverting User:Lihaas, was acting as an extension of User:Seabuckthorn in connection with the Good Article assessment to avoid the 0-RR prohibition imposed by Admin:Toddst1. NB: I suggest that in fairness User:Quadell also be warned for Edit Warring on this article as every other recent editor there has been. This is notwithstanding that User:Quadell is an involved Administrator and hence ought not to have intervened, and to assuage doubts that editors are being selectively bullied, warned and blocked to shield mentees of Admins.Notabede (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 0RR prohibition on this article. There is a discussion on a talk page that appears to have consensus for restoring that content. Toddst1 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a fake talk page discussion consensus, which took place after I had been blocked, and after you had scared away User:Lihaas, and which left only the POV pusher (he has a long history of it) and his involved Admin mentor to arrive at this "consensus".Notabede (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT change talk page comments after they have been responded to

[edit]

(edit conflict)If you continue to do this, you will lose the privilege of editing your own talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you observe, I had already self reverted 1 minute before your note.Notabede (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]


Jayadevp13 is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Also have a very Happy New Year! - Jayadevp13 06:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely for suspected sockpuppetry. Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

[edit]

A sock investigation has been opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notabede. You may contribute evidence below if you wish to defend yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please educate me how I, as an accused person, can defend myself at SPI if I am blocked globally.

The page at [40] explicitly says I have a right to defend myself there.

Comments by other users [edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Notabede (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if you post something below for the SPI page, I (or whomever sees it first) will transcribe it to the SPI page for you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I see is that I have a right to defend myself at SPI and to comment on what other editors claim about me there. I also see that at 17:29 you tell me that I am at SPI and can defend myself, but then 3 minutes later you block me to prevent me from directly defending myself at SPI. I also see that the "User compare report" tools are not working for me and I would like to see the data report from it before I begin to defend myself. How do I see the report ? Notabede (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The report doesn't work. You can post your defense here or not. Toddst1 (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be working very well for [41] on 11-Jan-2014 and from which I see that at Jimbo Wale's talk page "Indian Fakers are teaching Wikipedia PR" and paying Admins here $75 per faked page (like Aadhaar) to misuse their tools and knowledge of policy. After reading the guide to defending against SPI claims, it seems I have to defend about a)Accounts and b)IPs --- so that means I need the data from those tools. BTW what is a working key for them so that I can use them directly ? Notabede (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING

[edit]

I have reverted the borderline WP:OUTING you posted here. You have access to this page to discuss your block. If you continue to post negative items about others, you will lose your ability to edit this page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've just seen the CU report by DeltaQuad. Its mindless and he has also blocked 3 or 4 of my co-workers from editing at Wikipedia since we are on common computer networks. Will see exactly how many tomorrow at office since its 3 AM in the morning here now and once a clerk posts up the damage at SPI. Notabede (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Notabede&oldid=1144303174"