User talk:Nothereorthere

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Nothereorthere! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. If you wish to contact me on this page, please use {{Ping|HiLo48}} such that I get notified of your request. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
How to write a great article
The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Robodebt scheme. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not provide incorrect, misleading or false information. Examples include your references to 2011 The version you published is incorrect. I have fully references my changes. Your continual posting of incorrect information suggests your familiarity with the topic is not sufficient to be a contributor on this page

If the information needs corrected, I suggest you go in smaller steps with the updates. The wholesale replacement of the article is unacceptable; you need consensus for the change. (Further, the technical errors in the text suggest unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and calls into question compliance with other policies and guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided clear, accurate references, I had workd though your version, and ask you will notice the heading, layout etc you posted remain.

Your information is simply not true, I have provided fully referenced facts.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting immediately after a direct warning, with no attempts to use the talkpage as intended, is not acceptable behavior. You are expected to explain your reasons for the content you want to change on the talkpage, not to revert to get your way. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robodebt page

Hi, I noticed that there have been some issues with the Robodebt page. I initially put a template on there indicating its unbalanced nature due to violating WP:NPOV. I'll cite one of the examples in order to demonstrate the issues with the version that previously existed. The section "Scott Morrison - The no fault apology", contained one source linking to an ABC article about the apology, that contains no backing up for anything in the section except the apology. It then proceeded to go into detail as to why the apology is supposedly not genuine. I understand that you may feel that the apology given by the Prime Minister isn't genuine, but it's not for Wikipedia to go into detail as to why it's not genuine unless it can be verified through independent sources that the apology wasn't genuine. If you're interested in constructively adding to the page after your block has concluded, I'd urge you to take a look at the WP:NPOV page and read about the guidelines. --AnswerMeNow1 (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnswerMeNow1,

I hope you are able to get this message, this is still very new to me and I am unsure how I am meant to tag or talk to people. Thankyou for contacting me and expressing what your concerns, the content as it stands is extremely upsetting to the victims of this unlawful scheme. The version you saw was most likely an old version. I am still new and I have missed the "Publish Pages" step a few times. If you see my edit history you will notice that I have on many occasions made minor changes to include citations, references etc.

I am confident what you noticed was exactly this issue. If you notice a later version had this section fully referenced. (The link I have included at the bottom will hopefully take you to an older version with all of the required references and citations for the non apology section. While there has been a considerable amount written about non apologies, I chose to use a journal which has already used on another wikipedia page, I did this to ensure it was acceptable.

I trust with this information that your concerns have been addressed.

I trust you will also notice that my version is extensively cited and referenced, and it includes the required information for the reader to understand both the historical events prior to the creation of RoboDebt and the subsequent litigation, settlements, family tragedies as well as the status of what has been done to ensure this does not occur again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robodebt_scheme&oldid=994782792

Nothereorthere (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The content that had raised concerns because of just one citation, had actually been amended with full referencing to a Journal article. As explained above. Additionally the content that I was removing was inaccurate and misleading and was causing distress to the victims of Robodebt Nothereorthere (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please make sure you are abiding by the guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest

Hello, Nothereorthere. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Robodebt scheme, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help request

Moved from top section to new section for chronological order ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Hi, I have posted correct, factual information and another user posted false information. Not being familiar with the processes to deal with this I got reported and blocked for 24 hours.
I am now finding that the administrator "C.Fred" is not suppoting me in my removal of the false information. I have been lied to by C.Fred.

C.Fred told me secondary sources were preferred over primary sources.

C.Fred told me I had a conflict of interest, which is not true.

C.Fred told me that Wikipedia is not built on a crowd sourcing model.

I have spent well over an hour responding to C.Fred. I am concerned that I am being discriminated against. C.Fred has not queried the person who has post the false information, instead he is discouraging me from correcting it.

My chats with C.Fred are here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:C.Fred#ROBODEBT
Nothereorthere (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are generally preferred. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and must not rely solely on primary sources. Cf. WP:PSTS.
Accusing others of lying (i.e. intentionally writing untrue statements) without providing specific evidence in form of diff links is problematic and may be considered a personal attack; see also WP:ASPERSIONS.
The conflict of interest advice at the bottom of this talk page is written in subjunctive and may freely be ignored if there is no conflict of interest.
Regarding "crowd sourcing", you seem to refer to Special:Diff/995067961, which correctly explains the situation.
Edits such as Special:Diff/994880557 are inacceptable per our biographies of living persons policy, the prohibition on creating attack pages and the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view. You seem to refuse to get this and may be blocked from editing indefinitely if you disruptively continue to push your point of view.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, [[User:ToBeFree|

Thanks for your response.
The information in your response is not what I expected, may I please clarify.
Re: Sources-->

Does Wikipedia prefer secondary sources (Newspapers with unreferenced statements) containing false information ahead of primary sources (Parliamentary Laws, Bills, Reports) that are factual?

Re: Lies-->
I am not accusing anyone of lying, I am saying the information posted is a lie.

I will refer to the definition of lies contained on this page (https://www.quickbase.com/blog/know-when-someone-is-lying-7-types-of-lies) Either by error, denial, omission or restructuring, the content on the RoboDebt page contains lies. I had removed those lies (among others) and explained in my change that the information was not correct and I was providing factual information.

To be clear. It is the statements made that are the lie.

I am struggling to understand why wikipedia would prefer to support the posting of incorrect information. I am a long time user of wikipedia, and have found it to be very useful, particularly as it fostered contributions from knowledgeable people who would correct information that was incorrect. The fostering of contributions (crowd sourcing) is how I interpret the objectives of Wikipedia when its states "...highest possible quality to every single person on the planet"
Re: Crowd Sourcing-->

I am referring to the objectives of Wikipedia, specifically referencing these words on the "Prime Objective" & "Purpose" pages.
"Wikipedia provides greater and greater access over time for more and more people to (the sum of all) human knowledge."

To achieve this goal it states "to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet"

"largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth. We also want Wikipedia to be a reliable resource.—Larry Sanger"

"The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward"

I am unsure how my removing of the incorrect information does not align with these purposes/goals. Additionally I am unable to see why the user who repeatedly posts the incorrect information is being supported, while the person trying to get accurate information onto wikipedia is presented with discouragement and hurdles.

Re: Biography-->
I referenced and cited all of my content. These are not my opinions, these are the opinions or facts of the people I referenced, including people in the same political party as Scott Morrison.

To explain this I will use the example you referenced to me, "Scott Morrisons Robodebt". My writing this "As it has been described by media & in parliament" I provided multiple references for this attribution including a reference from Scott Morrison's colleague If his own colleague supports the attribution I fail to understand why/how you have formed an opinion that this fact should be removed.

To be clear, I fail to understand why this is considered bias on my part, I have clearly cited and referenced extensively in this article, including references to prove the attribution to Julia Gillard to be wrong.

Additionally I am struggling to understand how posting incorrect information about Julia Gillard does not contravene Wikipedia's policies, I am assuming there is somewhere in the policies that prevent lies about living people.

I removed the false information about Julia Gillard (among other incorrect pieces of information), when I did this I included in my notes when publishing that I was correcting incorrect information. How is it acceptable for someone to then override this without explaining how they formed the view that what was posted was inaccurate.

I am at a loss as to why I am punished and the person who posted the incorrect information is supported.

I hope this additional information clarifies things and I look forward to encouragement from Wikipedia in my endeavours to meet its objectives.

Thanks

Nothereorthere (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not accusing anyone of lying" – you, on this page

"I have been lied to by C.Fred." – also you, on the same page.

And the rest is just a big wall of WP:IDHT I won't spend my volunteer time on answering. Find different topics to contribute about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:ToBeFree. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. You have already been told about this. Do not say that other editors are liars. user:C.Fred is a well-respected editor, and an administrator on English Wikipedia. You may not understand or agree with the points that are being, but that does not make him a liar.

And do not bring this up on my page. I will not respond there. Meters (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO METERS

Hi [[Meters],

Firstly I am so confused, why am having so many conversations with different people, the process to get accurate information onto Wikipedia would put any government bureaucracy to shame. I estimate I have now spent more time trying to get incorrect information replaced with correct information than it took me to write the correct information in the first place. I can't possibly imagine that anyone else has ever had to jump through so many hoops and hurdles to actually help wikipedia.

For you to refer to Freds character in justifying his actions puts me in an impossible situation. How can I reply, refute, disagree with anything without effectively attacking his character and your assessment of his character.

Please note. the remainder of what I am writing is in no way a reflection on anyone's character, as you are new to this conversation I am providing you with the information that you do not have. I also want to make clear as this is chewing up an appalling amount of my time, this will be riddled with grammar & spelling and will likely contain some unclear statements

The Block

I will start with this quote from (BLANK) and the initial Blocking

"Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page..."
This was a false/inaccurate statement as it was made as a result of viewing an old version
This was an unspecified comment, I was not told what part of my article was being referred to, how am I meant to act when I have no idea what is being referred to?
I came to the conclusion that (BLANK) was viewing and old version as everything had been referenced and cited
With unspecified commentary how was I meant to know what was being referred to. Additionally I was unaware that (BLANK) was an administrator and therefor able to block me.
Consequently (Blank) I got blocked as a result of (Blank) viewing an old version

The Unblock Fail

When I requested an unblock, the information and explanation I provided (which took nearly an hour to write) was ignored and subsequently the block remained.
The explanation provided to my to explain the block remained was a full frontal assault on my character, which was unjustified and wrong.
This is what I was told I was unable or continue to do;

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Remove inaccurate information and replace with accurate information

In my attempts to be proactive and inform people that I was was going to make changes I was met with staunch resistance and discouragement. The copious amount of messages I have had to create is just extraordinary. I am staggered to find that wikipedia discourages the provision of accurate information. I am staggered to find wikipedia attacking the integrity of people without zero reason or zero attempt to seek clarification. I am staggered the wikipedia would make such harsh assessments of people without first trying to clarify.

Reputation and Misinformation

My accuracy The initial user who deleted my content saying it was inaccurate (without even specifying what he was referring to) was able to make that assessment and remove all of my content without any explanation od attempt to talk with me. How those actions are supported is bewildering, especially when compared to how I have been treated. My Violations The initial user accused me of several violations, and again not engaging with me before. I had made many changes, as included description about references being included. Being new, I thought it was acceptable to follow the other users actions. However I got punished and he got supported My treatment The initial user despite posting inaccurate, information, wiping all of my content off is being fully supported whilst I am being punished and discriminated against. Why I am being treated with such disrespect and disdain while he is being supported is unexplainable. I would appreciate having this explained to me.

To summarise

Wikipedia has inaccurate information Wikipedia is supporting someone who knowingly posts lies Wikipedia is has treated me in a way that is less than equal by comparison to (BLANK) Wikipedia has repeatedly attacked my reputation Wikipedia discourages the posting of accurate information Wikipedia supports the posting of innaccurate information Wikipedia maintains a hypocritical use of the policy regarding biographies opf living persons, by supporting the posting of innacurate information about Julia Gillard etc but preventing accurate information about other people Wikipedia has established a bias. I am unsure if the bias is against 'New Content Creators', "social strucutre' or "XYZ". Regardless this approach to the treatment of Julia Gillards information compared to others will create a uneven representation of content

Beyond Shocked

I am flabbergasted by the resistance I have experienced to posting accurate, referenced, cited content. I am bewildered how the entirety of my content can be removed without explanation. I am stunned that I have been forced to spend countless hours on messages, explanations, justifications, clarifications for the sole purpose of posting accurate information and removing inaccurate information. I can't stress this enough, if everyone was treated the same as I have been treated I can't imagine how wikipedia could possibly get the amount of content it does, I can only assume that I am experiencing highly unusual resistance and discouragement Nothereorthere (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your post on my Talk page

Hi, I'm not any kind of fancy moderator or anything here on wikipedia, only an occasional editor. In response to your post on my talk page, and some of your previous editing on the Robodebt page, I just wanted to let you know: that I created the Robodebt page as an article about the robodebt program as a whole, however a number of the changes you have previously made turned the page into what felt like a political attack ad against Scomo. Scomo's involvement in the scheme should only be included as part of the 'inception' paragraph, which is part of why I made changes to that section yesterday. Now, don’t get me wrong, I detest Scomo and the LNP, but this seemingly personal vendetta of yours against scomo doesn’t need to dominate an article which is about the program as a whole. Further, if, as you said on my talk page, you work with 'Victims of Robodebt', then as others have pointed out, you may have too much of a conflict of interest to be editing the Robodebt page.

In response to your claim that the section regarding the Gillard government in 2011 is 'incorrect and misleading', it's well and good to just claim that, but what references do you have to prove to the contrary? If it's true that those two references are false, then they can be removed, but from the references you'd previously posted on the page, none of them actually proved your claim that the section regarding the about Gillard in 2011 is a lie. If you could post those in response here, that'd be great.

Let me talk for a second about the previous changes you made to the Gillard 2011 section (See below):

* The origins of the Data Matching have been completely ignored by many people who are falsely attributing the unlawful RoboDebt system of the Scott Morrison government to a Labor Party idea in 2011. this false attribution has been led by Stuart Robert MP who has put the deceitful information in a press release on the Services Australia website^[1].

In this sentence, the only reference you provided was to Stuart Robert's post criticizing the Labor Party. Your claim that "The origins of the Data Matching have been completely ignored by many people who are falsely attributing the unlawful RoboDebt system to a Labor Party idea in 2011", doesn't actually have a reference proving that the Gillard 2011 section is actually false. Stuart Robert's post - at best - can only be considered an example of an attribution, but just linking to that alone is not enough evidence to prove that the information currently on the Robodebt page is 'incorrect and misleading', or even that Stuart Robert's claims are false.

Let me know what you think. If the Gillard 2011 section is indeed false, then yes, it should be corrected, but simply saying that without providing hard evidence, via references, isn't enough to justify changing that section as it currently stands. Claiming that what is currently there is "deeply upsetting and offensive to people who have been the victim of RoboDebt", again without proof, also doesn't cut it. Please don't use the suffering of the victims of Robodebt as a bargaining chip to try and get changes made to the Gillard 2011 section. Given that you are new to Wikipedia, you need to realise that you can't go making claims without providing references that corroborate your assertions.

Best regards, B 897 (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

When at least half-a-dozen experienced editors have patiently explained to you that you are doing something wrong, it should be an indication to you that you are doing something wrong, and should review Wikipedia policies on sourcing, conflict of interest and neutrality before going further, or accusing other editors of bad faith. Please read, and re-read, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, along with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly,

you are asserting that 6 wikipedia administrators in someway outweighs the content I provided.
you are asserting the choice of 6 administrators to accept incorrect information and dismiss my content without reading or engaging is obviously the correct way wikipedia works
you are asserting that it is obvious that I should not get in the way of 6 wikipedia administrator (& content creators) who put up incorrect information.

If my interpretations of your words are wrong, please correct me.

Collective thoughts of 6 administrators To use/rely on the apparent 'collective thought power' of 6 administrators to justify these actions and choices is flawed for many reasons. At no point has any of the 6 administrators read all of my content and references. Perhaps each of you have assumed someone else read the citations and references, regardless if it was one person then the likelyhood of that 1 person actually reading the content prior to forming an opinion would increase substantially If one of the 6 did read it and shared there interpretations with others then that has led to the choice of that person who did not seek clarification spreading an uninformed opinion to many. At no point has any administrators contributed new information to the topic of RoboDebt, this makes sense as I doubt any of the 6 administrators have much if any knowledge about robodebt. I assume this, as if you did have knowledge you would have seen the incorrect information. At no point has any of these administrators worked in a coherent way, it has caused confusion and inefficiency, I have needed to repeat myself to a multitude of people with no known purpose, for examples;

what there role is on the robodebt article,
why they are asking the questions they do about Robodebt,
what they intend to do with the information I provide and
what they actually have done with the information I provided.

90% unquestionably fine My estimation is that the combined work/review of 6 administrators have had concerns with less than 10% of the content of my article, therfore the overwhelming majority of my content was without question, perfectly ok. With 90% of the content fine, 6 administrators chose to remove the entirety of my content based on judgements formed without reading references/citations or contact the person who created to content (Me).

Administrators Roles A quick check of what administrators do leads me to look at this statement

"While the creation and refinement of articles is the principal aim of Wikipedia, the support work that administrators perform is also a useful contribution. In this context, administrators should remember the principal purpose is to write an encyclopedia."
These are the kind of statement I had assumed to guide people on wikipedia, however I interpreted these incorrectly and made assumptions that have been proven to be wrong. I will just accept that the correct interpretation of this and other goals, objectives & purposes of wikipedia includes the creation and protection of false information.

I will avoid trying to guessing what the motivation is for wikipedia to adopt these processes and decision making steps, instead

Accept As I wrote in response to B987 while I accept these goals, rules etc. I do not agree with them.

I will just accept that what I thought and assumed about Wikipedia was 100% wrong.
I will accept that the Robodebt content on Wikipedia is wrong
I will accept that the way wikipedia works I shuold approach all content with an assumption of being innacurate
I will accept that wikipedia has made its choice and that choice supports misleading, innacurate information about RoboDebt.
I will accept that wikipedia supports the work of someone who has barely any knowledge of robodebt and puts up false information.
I will accept that wikipedia does not support the inclusion of accurate information.
I will accept that wikipedias processes include the removal of all content without reading it or contacting the creator.
I will accept that wikipedia maintains a hypocritical and selective application of its policies. Specifically the support of the inaccurate, false and offensive statements regarding Julia Gillard (and her whole government).

I can't even think of an implausible, let alone plausible justification for your willingness to allow a violation of the 'Biography of living persons' (note sure of exact words) with regards to Julia Gillard (and her government) but your rejection of factual information about others.

My assumptions

As I said, I made assumptions and incorrectly interpreted how wikipedia describes itself and its objective, this is my fault.
The assumptions I made were built on the false premise that Wikipedias goal was to have accurate information and wanted knowledgeable people to create content.
As all of my other actions and assumptions were built on the above wrong assumption then they are all incorrect as well

. Everything I did here was driven by the objective of removing inaccurate and offensive information.

In summary,

As this is about the accuracy of information, to use/rely on expertise in performing administration is as logical as me rely on my ability to eat a pie.
To make it clear, It is a logical fallacy to assert that I am wrong because 6 administrators disagree, you could have 100 people who are all ill-informed, it does not discount that the one person is an expert on the topic being discussed.
In fact the opposite is clearly the most logical way to compare.
Why is it that one expert has had the same issue with 6 Novices/ill-informed people. This leads you to the obvious conclusion that the processes used by the Novices/ill-informed do not allow for the contribution of experts
I have been accused of acting in bad faith from the very beginning, these accusation were not tested, validated or subject to any level of contrary view. Any comments I have made about acting in bad faith is me trying to adapt to the processes I have seen used and supported by wikipedia administrators.
You/Wikipedia accepted without question or clarification that I was Wrong, made up content, made biased content, etc.
When I asked for a review, the person who reviewed my request did not read what I had written...
Your assertion that I have acted in bad faith is flawed and false.
All I have done was to work out how to remove inaccurate information and contribute accurate information.
I have tried to do this through a process that does not reflect what has been described on Wikipedias own pages.

Every single message, question or statement I have received included ZERO interest in getting facts, I have spent in excess of 6 hours responding to people and I now realise that not one of these people were interested in getting factual information on Wikipedia. It also appears the people I am interacting with know how to spell robodebt, but have no other knowledge.

Final Acceptance:

I accept wikipedia prefers & supports incorrect information and rejects and discourages accurate information.
Now that I am aware of this I will not attempt to either remove inaccurate information or provide accurate information
This is your wikipedia, these are your processes, these are your preferences, this is your content.
It is your choice to have offensive and inaccurate information and I have wasted 6+ hours on the fales assumption about wikipedias goals.
Now that I know the goals do not relate to accuracy, I will not waste anymore time.

Best of luck Nothereorthere (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be interested in listening to anyone's voice but your own, and you appear to be convinced that this encyclopedia is a battlefield upon which you must prevail, regardless of the encyclopedia's policies or the help you've been offered. Based on your behavior and the wall of text on this page, I'm removing your editing privileges , since this seems like a lost cause. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, not everybody you've been talking to are administrators. The distinction is that administrators, in addition to ordinary editing work, deal with behavioral issues - and since I've taken no part in the content you've been focused on, I can devote my attention to your conduct. That's why I've removed your editing privileges.l Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Acroterion

Amazingly Odd You seem to be under the impression that you blocking me is some sort of punishment. The only people being punished are the people who read the inaccurate, false and offensive information.

I will try and do as I have done on all messages, which is to respond to each statement/question/comment etc

Statement by you->

You don't seem to be interested in listening to anyone's voice but your own

My response ->

"To say I don't seem to..." suggests some doubt. However I am unsure which part you maybe referring too, and therefore I it is very difficult for me to respond to allay your doubt.

What I can say is I have read all responses and referred to the information and statements made in every single response.

I have taken the time to address every point/question/statement made. In order for me to do this I needed to read and comprehend everything was written. Where possible I have included references to clarify my comments. Please let me know how I have been able to respond to every message and the ponints within them and manage to not listen to what was written

Statement by you->

"...because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."

My response ->

This is self evidently wrong, the time I put into creating content and the subsequent time spent trying to work out how I could remove inaccurate content could only be driven by the objective of making the encyclopedia better.

Why else would I spend hours creating content. What other objective could I possible have. What I do not understand is why wikipedia does not have that objective, removing and blocking accurate informed, erferenced and cited content can only be viewed as wanting the opposite.

Statement by you->

and you appear to be convinced that this encyclopedia is a battlefield upon which you must prevail, regardless of the encyclopedia's policies or the help you've been offered.

My response ->

I find this comment to be baseless and offensive, I can't imagine that there is anyway I could read what you have written and not see it as a slur or attack on me.
I am also stunned that the people who are administrators (experts, people who guide others, people who want to be respected etc) feel it is ok to make such statements against the most inexperienced users.
Their is a wonderful irony that what you see as a battle is the result of me trying to post
Everything I have been doing was with just one aim, that aim was to insure the encyclopaedia not contain inaccuracies.
At no point have I made any assertion or made this about me prevailing or a battle.
As I said my efforts were based on the assumption that Wikipedia wanted accurate information.
The most I could be accused of is wanting the truth to prevail
Naturally people like me will take their queues from experienced people like you. When you make slanderous and offensive comments about the character of someone, how are inexperienced people like me meant to know that that behaviour is only acceptably by administrators

Statement by you->

Based on your behaviour and the wall of text on this page, I'm removing your editing privileges , since this seems like a lost cause.

My response ->

Above you have used the word "Seem" and "Appear" which suggest doubt. Your statement/Actions here a definitive. I am unsure why you would hand out such a large punishment without being sure.

Statement by you->

By the way, not everybody you've been talking to are administrators. The distinction is that administrators, in addition to ordinary editing work, deal with behavioural issues - and since I've taken no part in the content you've been focused on, I can devote my attention to your conduct. That's why I've removed your editing privileges.

My response ->

I note you have said you have not read my content, I am not sure how this is meant to enhance the credibility of your decisions.
I would like to make sure that you are aware that you & your colleagues are supporting the publishing of inaccurate and false information.
I have provided ample references and evidence to prove the content on RoboDebt is wrong.
I have responded to people based on the comments provided. I had no idea that 6 administrators had been involved, and I am still unsure why it matters if someone is an administrator, people asked questions and made statements, I treated everyone equally and responded to all.
My interest was solely focused of putting accurate information non wikipedia and removing the inaccurate information.
As I am now aware this is not the priority of Wikipedia.

This is not complicated.

Wikipedia contains false information.
Wikipedia has shown no interest in correcting the false information
Wikipedia has chosen to reject the evidence that proves what is their is wrong
Wikipedia has chosen to reject accurate information, and instead maintain the inaccurate information.

As you can imagine this comes as a surprise to me (and others I have now spoken to) however now that I understand we don't share the common objective of accuracy, it makes more sense.

As I have said to a few people (No idea if they are administrators or what their role or interest is)

I have chosen to accept you and other administrators have chosen to reject accurate content and protect inaccurate, false and offensive content.
I have chosen to accept that Wikipedia knowingly supports the publishing of inaccurate, false and offensive content.
I have chosen to accept that Wikipedia knowingly rejects corrections of inaccurate, false and offensive content.
I have chosen to accept that Wikipedia knowingly rejects the publishing of accurate, referenced, cited content.
I have chosen to accept that Wikipedia administrators (and others) are able to make allegations without seeking clarification
I have chosen to accept that Wikipedia administrators (and others) actions do not put the goal of having accurate information on wikipedia as a prime goal
I have chosen to accept that Wikipedia administrators (and others) have objectives, goals, purposes that result in the supporting incorrect information
I have chosen to accept that Wikipedia administrators (and others) will support content provided by people who have very little knowledge on the topic being written about, while blocking and rejecting content from experts
I have chosen to accept that all I can do is inform other people that wikipedia knowingly supports inaccurate information has rejected accurate information and it is unwise to try and correct it.

My acceptance of these facts does not mean I agree or support them, these are merely statements of facts that I did not have a week ago, but I do now.

It has been an eye opening experience and an experience that will come as a shock to all people I know.

Best of luck Nothereorthere (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

l Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

YES WIKIPEDIA KNOWS THE ROBODEBT PAGE IS FALSE, INNACURATE AND OFFENSICE

Hi,

To those people who previously contacted me after I corrected the information on Wikipedias RoboDebt page, firstly I say thanks. Somehow positive feedback from strangers is doubly as nice.

It was great to get feedback from strangers who took the time to contact me. Volunteering time and effort lives for such feedback.

I have had one person follow up with me wanting to know why I put the incorrect information back on Wikipedia. Below are my shortened answers to the person who messaged me. (As I have no idea who you are, except the few messages I received I will leave names off) I will put them here as I hope you may find them and understand what has happened and pass this onto others you think maybe interested

No->This is not my doing.
Yes->I know what is up there now is wrong.
Yes->Wikipedia knows that it is inaccurate and that it is also offensive to some people
No->I am not able to explain why Wikipedia wants the inaccurate information up there.
No->I will not be able to remove the inaccurate information
Yes-> The person who created the robodebt page is aware what they have created is false, Here is my communication with that person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:B_897 .Note you will need to read the "Version History" to understand some of the content.
Yes-> It is impossible for me to make any changes, for 2 main reasons.

*Wikipedia's administrator have chosen to keep the inaccurate information and support the removal of my content. Again this is a surprise to me and I am unable to explain why as I don't know myself
*Wikipedia's administrator have blocked me from making any edits.

It is far too long to try and explain the details. If you read my "Talk" page you will see the majority of my communications with wikipedia and you will be as informed as I am. Yes

Again thanks to those who had contacted me to say thanks. I had no idea how the old information affected you when I made the changes, and it was a great feeling to learn what I had done had these unforeseen benefits.

Best of luck Nothereorthere (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

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

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

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

~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Your attempt to evade the block by editing while logged out at Talk:Robodebt scheme has been reverted.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the IP has been blocked. Acroterion (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Australia, Services (17 September 2019). "Media release: Handy guide to Labor's record on 'robodebt'". Services Australia. Retrieved 17 September 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[1] Australia, Services (17 September 2019). "Media release: Handy guide to Labor's record on 'robodebt'". Services Australia. Retrieved 17 September 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[1]