User talk:PartyParrot42

Just have to say

Thanks for teaching me about Sirocco. How happy he looked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon

I don't know if this is of any use to you Breeding Contempt - WSJ (archive.is), Review: ‘Pit Bull’ Traces Path From Fighter to Pet to Demon - The New York Times (archive.org), Pit bull author’s critics are off the leash – Shaffer | News & Observer (archive.org) Dwanyewest (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Do you know how wikipedia usually handles archived webpages or webpages behind paywall in citations? I'd really like to include these somehow but the original page still links to articles behind paywall. I think I've seen some articles include the archive link within the actual citation. PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Internet Archive or archive.today are good places to get pass most paywalled articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I think we now have good source coverage on the Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon page, at least for the current revision. PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Whataboutism

Some of the arguments on that page have it exactly backwards. Otherwise reliable sources don't become unreliable solely because they cite Dogsbite.org, Dogsbite.org becomes reliable on a very limited, context-specific basis for that fact when reliable sources cite it. The principle is WP:USEBYOTHERS. This has been endlessly, and I would say disruptively argued on that talkpage in the past. Geogene (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Judging by skimming all the archived Talk pages it's pretty clear there are two individuals that are being rather disruptive and not interacting genuinely on the arguments 😉 PartyParrot42 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Judging by your lack of objectivity and intellectual honesty. Its clear you have a bias you are unable to break free from. Quit wasting my time appearing like you're objective and just be honest.

And using the WP:USEBYOTHERS to hide behind the fact that the source is a self-published website that's data collection is suspect at best is clearly showing you accept the WP guidelines that help you and discredit the ones that hurt your argument.

The Nanny Dog myth is widely stated, so it must be reputable!!! lmao Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, responding to you saying "there are two individuals that are being rather disruptive and not interacting genuinely on the arguments" by stating you yourself are not interacting honestly, is somehow an insult? Then who insulted who first I ask? I'd argue that 2 people have opinions and stating those opinion isn't an insult, but your welcome to be insulted. If you wish to speak about it, please keep it here and not pit bulls talk page. If you don't wish to talk about it, then so be it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said who the two individuals were. Why do you assume you are one of them?

Please stop with the WP:NOPA, both on my page and the pit bull talk page. PartyParrot42 (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Wonder who you and Geogene both disagree with, that also is the person who you accused of "whataboutism", which is the title of this section. What evidence would anyone ever have that you were referring to me at all. Its mystifying why anyone with a brain would ever think you were talking about that specific person.

Not an insult champ. Read WP:NOPA to learn what a PA is. WP:DR if you feel differently. If you want me to stop responding, maybe don't end it with a question to me. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely was not talking about you in "those two individuals." You're not the only one engaged in edit wars and personal attacks. You just engaged in this thread assuming we're talking about you, which is telling.

And of course I've read WP:NOPA. Stop being rude and attacking me for not reading something just because I disagree with you on the subject. You have done this before on the Pit bull talk page, after I had discussed the paper in detail: "You were the one that cited the study... I don't think its unreasonable for me to expect that you read it and the material presented.... ...but as I mentioned before, maybe you didn't read it" - Unbiased6969 PartyParrot42 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

What scary is that you believe yourself. At this point, I'm done. Should have been a long time ago. If you feel so strongly that you are right. WP:DR it. I will love to see the outcome. In the future, I hope you are able to recognize your own biases and when they're affecting your judgement. Unbiased6969 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tendentious and POV-editing and battleground behavior as seen in:

- Your edits at Talk:Pit bull;

- Your edits at Talk:Dogsbite.org, an organization with strong views on pitbulls;

- Nomination of a book in which the author is critical of dogsbite.org for deletion despite it being reviewed in NYT etc;

- Your comments at the ANI report you filed that tendentiously accused other editors of racism, and pushed for the reliability of dogbites.org despite being pointed to previous RSN discussion;

- Seemingly pretending to have just discovered through googling Reditt threads related to this topic despite your previous edits, including IMO as 172.91.86.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that not only discussed related Reditt thread but in which you dismissed concerns over them with "TBH I wouldn't put a ton of stock in this. People are going to talk about wikipedia on reddit."

And all this despite your account being less than a week old and having made fewer than 100 edits. It is clear from your editing that you are not new to editing wikipedia and that you cannot edit neutrally in this topic-area. If you are interested in editing wikipedia articles unrelated t this subject, I would consider unblocking you with a topic-ban..

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 ~~~~}}.  Abecedare (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there

- I don't see what's wrong with my edits to Talk:Pit bull. I thought that was the correct place for discussion of this subject. It got very contentious with User:Unbiased6969, and they started insulting me rather than providing answers, despite my attempts to ask for clarifications on the points they brought up. After telling them multiple times to stop, they said "Not an insult champ. Read WP:NOPA to learn what a PA is. WP:DR if you feel differently. If you want me to stop responding, maybe don't end it with a question to me. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)" So I looked up WP:DR and attempted to follow the instructions, which said I should file an ANI report. Honestly, I shouldn't have fallen for what both me, another editor of that page, and other admins in the ANI page all agreed was "whataboutism" coming from Unbiased6969. That's where the argument became heated on that page, and I started getting insults.

- I'm not sure what's wrong with my edit to Talk:Dogsbite.org. The only edit I have there was to provide information I found upon googling for the username Tazdeviloo7 on google. I only did it because I saw that it was also banned after the ANI report I filed (even though I never brought up that account), and I didn't recognize the username. I found one youtube account under that name (tons of dog videos, of course), and a subreddit entirely devoted to criticizing the dogsbite.org website. All the submissions were under the username Tazdeviloo7.

- As far as the book AfD that I filed here. I was legitimately confused regarding why it had its own page. But if you read the AfD it's clear from my comments that I am working with the editors, and came to the conclusion that no, the article should not be deleted because of its reviews. One of the editors even helped me find some behind-paywall sources that I was able to use to clean up the references on the page, which I felt was important because some of them were incorrect. Please look at the edits on the page. Both myself and other users did corrections of the cited sources in an attempt to verify that the page for the book did indeed have enough reviews for it to count as notable. From my understanding of the process, I'm supposed to let that page stay open for a week before I close the AfD.

- Regarding the ANI: I wasn't the only user in that thread that interpreted what Unbiased6969 said as an accusation of racism, so I don't think my reaction to their comment was an overreaction. There was disagreement with the admins on that point once I brought it up in the ANI, but I'm ok agreeing to disagree on this interpretation. I don't think that negates any of my other points that Unbiased6969 was needlessly insulting in that discussion.

- Regarding the reddit thread, I didn't think any of the reddit threads cited are serious, both the "pro" and "anti" dog sides of it. The first one is a pitbull-owner saying "I'll give you pictures of my dog for editing the wikipedia article for pit bulls." The latter ones seem to be discussions of WP:NPOV, but I doubted either of these would result in real canvassing. People on reddit are full of talk. The issue I found with Tazdeviloo7 was totally different - they were a mod of a subreddit entirely devoted to making fun of dogsbite.org, which I think is relevant for people to know, given how many edits this individual made to dog-related pages.

- I've always been an avid wikipedia reader, but this is, truly, my first week actually digging into things and editing, so I'm totally new to some of the "nuts and bolts" aspects of this site, but I've been doing my best to keep it civil. I've been trying to start conversations on Talk pages, unlike some of the other users (including Unbiased6969) that tend to jump straight into working on the page itself and making changes without discussion on topics with other editors. If you look at the edit history for Pit bull for example, you see a lot of people making series of edits that end up being reverted due to disagreements. Whereas I have made zero edits to the Pit bull page at this point. PartyParrot42 (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry the above is a lot of text - I wanted to address all the points

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).

PartyParrot42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Acting in good faith to make useful comments and edits to wikipedia talk pages on dogs, without getting into WP:EW on non-talk pages

Decline reason:

If you do not see anything wrong with your approach, there are no grounds to remove the block. PhilKnight (talk) 05:19, 28 May 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.

PartyParrot42 (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but I'm still confused as to why this unblock request has been declined. There were a lot of points to address, and I'm not sure which ones people are taking issue with after my attempted explanation of points. Can you help explain @PhilKnight:? I thought I'd addressed all the points in the block request, and I admitted to getting into an ill-advised tiff with Unbiased6969 on the Talk:Pit bull page, which I now realize was bad form. PartyParrot42 (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an effort to write an encyclopedia, not a chat room. Your edits add no value to Wikipedia. You need to change your entire approach. PhilKnight (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I realize that we're trying to build an encyclopedia. I'm not trying to turn it into a chat room. I thought discussing things on talk pages and then making edits would be a less aggressive way of making changes.

As far as my edits "adding no value to wikipedia", I would like to offer the changes both myself and Dwanyewest made on the entry for Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon, in which we went through all the listed citations, verified them (including direct quotes and book reviews). As far as the last known revision I checked, all sources now resolve (some were 404), and there were only a couple that were inaccurate, but I checked those by going through the entire cited article and checking to see if the quotes we cited were indeed correct. It appeared to me there were some diffs where the location of the reference was off by where it should be by a sentence or so, so we fixed that, and were able to come to an agreement on keeping the page. Dwanyewest really helped me a lot with finding the last few sources in internet archives when the original page was no longer being hosted.

I do also have updates to Soccer (dog) where I was able to find extra sources that verified the dog's lineage, and updates to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in which I found a newspaper source that filled in a requested explanation for why Atlanta annexed the Emory/CDC location.

None of my page edits have been reverted or overwritten, which I would expect if I were truly not adding any value to wikipedia. Especially with the amount of attention the pages I've edited have gotten after their edits, I would have expected by now someone to either tell me about my updates being inaccurate, or would have overwritten changes themselves.

Once again, can somebody help explain? I don't mean to be pedantic, but saying "I need to change my whole approach" doesn't answer any of the points I made regarding the block, so I'm still left confused with the exact changes to my approach requested. I thought I'd addressed all the points in the block request, so I'm looking for someone who will help answer my question on what issues still exist. Maybe @Abecedare: can answer since they wrote the original block? I would really appreciate more detail on what was wrong with my unblock request, so I can understand and alter my approach.

I wonder if @Geogene: may also be able to provide some insight, since they were very much involved in both the Talk:Pit bull discussion and the ANI discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Been watching this page. I think I can provide some insight to what happened. The decision to block you was reached by admins Tamzin and Abecedare in this WP:SPI here [1] Assuming you do want to continue editing despite this, you should note that Abecedare also wrote, If you are interested in editing wikipedia articles unrelated to this subject, I would consider unblocking you with a topic-ban. If I were you, and again, if this didn't turn me off from editing Wikipedia completely, then I would ask Abecedare or some other admin to commute your block to a topic ban. Basically you would never write content about or discuss dogs or anything that relates to dogs, at all, any more. If you can do that, you'd disprove the WP:NOTHERE and socking concern behind your block, and also learn a lot about how the site works.

Also WP:STANDARDOFFER is an important essay for editors that want to be unblocked but don't aren't sure how. Geogene (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Very helpful. 🙏 I didn't realize they thought I was another user under a new account name. Not sure how to definitively prove I'm not that user, but it sounds like at least one admin was able to verify that I'm not that user.

The gist I got from WP:STANDARDOFFER is I'd have to make no edits for 6 months if I wanted to continue editing on dog topics? So that means I wouldn't be able to work on my favorite pages e.g. Soccer (dog) (he's so cute!)? I'd almost rather wait it out rather than being forever topic banned from working on that page. I was really proud that I found missing sources for the lineage of our favorite star actor of the television show Wishbone.

But back to the link you posted, it looks like I'm not the first person to be accused of sockpuppeting for the old user they mentioned, which begs the question - does that mean that any newish user who gets involved in the Talk:Pit bull or Pit bull pages runs the risk of sockpuppeting accusations, especially if they don't agree with every point made by certain individuals on the talk pages? I mean, I didn't agree with all the points being made on Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon, but I thought it was pretty clear from my edits and attempts to clean up the page for everyone that I'm able to handle WP:NPOV edits. It feels unfair that new users would be called out just for touching a certain set of pages. I even tried explaining/sharing the diffs I created, but it sounds like nobody looked at them to determine whether my edits were actually useful. 😕 They just assumed they weren't because of the set of pages I started with when I made my account this week. And the thing is, there are a few accounts that seem to only update on pitbull related-pages, and have done so for months or years, whereas in my first week I started on those topics and have attempted to branch out, with success! It just seems like there's some unwritten policy that certain sets of pages cannot be touched by new users, for fear of being accused of being biased or sockpuppeting.

I think that's why I was so saddened by "Your edits add no value to Wikipedia. You need to change your entire approach." 😞 In addition to avoiding my questions for clarification, it feels like trivializing the work I've put in to clean up pages. It's really souring me on the wikipedia editing experience.

PartyParrot42 (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about the "no value" comment - that was not fair. I have struck that comment. PhilKnight (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

🙏 ty, I feel a little better.

Still confused about the overall ban though, so unless I get help from one of the other involved editors or admins it sounds like I'll take a six month vacation from editing.

I wish I'd gotten the chance to respond to the block allegations before the block happened. At least in the ANI I filed, that user got the chance to respond to those allegations and have a discussion on it, and we (editors/admins) tried to answer their questions in various threads.

The "Seemingly pretending to have just discovered through googling" allegation is pretty serious allegation though. As mentioned, given the timing it would have been impossible for me to make up that I just found that out, because I hadn't heard of that username until the very end of the ANI conversation when an admin banned them for being related to the other account I reported. Is it bad to point things out like that on the relevant wikipedia talk page when I encounter them? If they don't go there, was there a better place for me to put that?

I'm really trying but by not getting feedback, I'm worried in the future I'll encounter another infraction by accident, because I don't know. I don't want to do that. 😕 Geogene and some of the other editors are very helpful though.

Any replies appreciated, but it sounds like at this point I need to lower my expectations and take a six month vacation, and hope I don't make the same mistakes again. 🙁 PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

PartyParrot42, I have not replied to your longer post because, among other problems,

1. It contains errors of facts, eg, compare The only edit I have there (on Talk:Dogsbite.org) was to provide information I found upon googling for the username Tazdeviloo7 on google. I only did it because I saw that it was also banned after the ANI report vs your edits to the talkpage that preceded even the filing of the said ANI report.
2. If you don't already see why, for eg, arguing for the reliability of dogsbite.org while trying to get a wikipedia article on a book critical of it deleted (by in part, removing sources including Washington Post and Psychology Today articles while the article was at AFD) is tendentious and POV-driven editing, then nothing I can say will make it clearer.

That said, as Geogene pointed above, there is an open offer to be unblocked while being topic-banned from any articles and discussions related to dogs. By editing in unrelated areas you'll have a better chance of understanding wikipedia policies regarding sourcing, neutral POV, notability etc. Just sitting it out for 6 month, or any period, won't get you unblocked unless you can explain why the problems that led your block are unlikely to recur. Abecedare (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for responding! I'm sorry, I must have misread the talk page in looking for diffs. You are entirely correct.

1. If you look closer at the Talk:Dogsbite.org page, you'll see that what I did was look at the quote that was attributed to Dickey. I later found a copy of the original book text where she mentioned it the phrase, but the quote itself was an exact match to text in the psychology today article, so I updated it to reflect that. (I included the full quote in my Talk mention, because it seemed a contentious issue and I didn't want to be accused of meddling with the page)

2. I originally thought the book didn't merit a page, but the discussion made it more clear that I was incorrect. After coming to that conclusion, I was going to let the AfD expire. As far as the first diff, I removed that because upon downloading the article it made no mention of the author's seven years of research, and we already had two sources for that. So if the article didn't include that fact it was citing, I thought it would be appropriate to remove. And if it turned out that we were supposed to keep that article, but the citation was just in the wrong place, I'd have no issue with someone adding it back elsewhere. Similarly with the second diff, I read through the articles but didn't say anything about what it cited in the article, which was regarding people "downplaying the potential danger of pit bull dogs." I even worked with Dwanewest (original page author) to find sources behind paywall for the page. I just thought we were being helpful to all the other AfD reviewers, because after we went through all the sources we were able to verify all of them, and remove the few that seemed to be misplaced. Nobody told me I was doing it wrong. I just wanted to make sure that we had enough (cited) reviews for the book to be able to justify keeping the page.

And just to clarify the whole thing about finding that username as a mod of a strange anti-dogsbite subreddit still happened after the ANI. I just forgot I'd made those comments on Talk:Dogsbite.org previously. The ironic part is the reason I included those two comments on the talkpage regarding the quotes I was looking into was because I knew it was contentious, and I wanted to document that I was trying to find the correct source for that, not just removing stuff because of personal reasons.

sorry for the wall of text - just trying to address everything

PartyParrot42 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare About Talk:Dogsbite.org, this [2] looks like WP:OUTING, and may need admin-treatment. PartyParrot42, if you haven't read OUTING, you should. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• WP:OUTING inapplicable, WP:OTHERSITES larger concern:

WP:OUTING states "Personal information includes real-life name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not." Nothing about usernames being PII.

I think the closest thing to this is WP:OTHERSITES: "Another factor to look at is knowledge or behavior. Is the user on other sites writing about an identical subject? Are they trying to promote themself, a friend, or a personal point of view? Are they trying to invent a new concept, promote a new word, idea, or otherwise get the word out about something original?" (emphasis added)

• Pit bull owners are ok. WP:ADVOCACY is not:

To go as far as creating a subreddit devoted to an immature fart joke including sources that were added to DogsBite.org by Tavaloo7 in one single diff sounds like it may be either WP:ADVOCACY or WP:XS to me as well.

There is nothing wrong with responsible pit bull ownership. But I find it disingenuous when I see a user openly discussing how their adopted pit bull has started to show stereotypical aggression symptoms (attacking dogs at the dog park and resource guarding around food) that can indicate a dog may need more training to avoid biting, and then they devote most of their work on wikipedia to adding sources and text to pages to discredit as much as possible one of the few organizations that attempt to track dog bites (i.e. Dogites.org). I assume this is because the organization typically publishes numbers that state that bites from pit bull type dogs are more likely? This user also posted frequently in the /r/antiBSL subreddit, expressing delight at rollbacks of BSL laws saying "RIP BSL". (I have links for this as well, but who knows, I'd probably get accused of doxing if I actually included these, even if they don't have personal info)

It's exhausting to watch these predictable WP:RS pile-ons that happen every time someone mentions or questions using dogsbite.org as a source for something, even on the DogsBite.org page. Isn't great for new users either, who unknowingly walk into a quagmire of wikipedia processes spread around dozens of talk pages.

• WP:DNTL

I kinda hate to bring this up, but... 😕

WP:DNTL on the most verifiable fact ever. I'm totally flummoxed why anyone would do this, because wikipedia records all receipts:

A certain person said: "The User:Tazdeviloo7 has not been banned for sockpuppeting, despite your accusations.." (diff)

And then proof that the user was banned at the time when I posted the message is here: (diff)

The absolute level of gaslighting is epic in, "I am unsure what anyone does off Wikipedia has anything to do with their editing." When it's a user that goes through the effort to make an entire subreddit to make fun of a source that they then go on wikipedia to edit, or judge the WP:RS status of? The amount of effort to do such a thing is neither normal nor acceptable. The amount of immaturity, vitriol, and disrespect we expect users like this to "leave at the door" when they start editing these subjects is off the charts. I'm less worried about any WP:ASPERSIONS, and more that there are editors who are in violation of WP:DNTL.

At this point I think I'd be fine with a topic ban. There are enough clearly biased accusations that have lied about easily verifiable information about me on wikipedia, that I doubt my edits as a WP:NPOV would make any difference anyway.

PartyParrot42 (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It's up to the admins if any WP:SUPPRESS is needed, but I was going with "other contact information". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, if they think WP:SUPPRESS is required. I presume they'd know better than me. In that case, it would be ideal to only remove the URLs if possible.

Including "other contact information" sounds like a pretty big loophole. Are there any historic examples of usage of this for a reddit account? It seems it would be impossible to enforce WP:OTHERSITES without it. Two of the major things weighed are 1. Does the username seem to match, and is not likely to be a name that could be confused with another identity (i.e. not like Bob Smith), and 2. Is there a significant overlap of "knowledge and behavior" expressed.

As far as "contact information," there is no way to contact a suspended reddit user, and no identity in real life disclosed. PartyParrot42 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSITES is an essay. Essays are not "enforced". Please read the This is an essay notice at the top of that page. Schazjmd (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I have removed the section from the talk page out of abundance of caution especially since the sock-block that had prompted the discussion has been overturned as mistaken.

PartyParrot42, I understand why you had started the section at that time but that's moot now. As a blocked user, please use this talkpage primarily to appeal your block (if you wish). Abecedare (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the editors want me to say on the block regarding "not being new" accusation. It's not supported by the data.

Clear WP:OWN issues on dog topics

- By trying for more NPOV edits, it looks like I made WP:OWN editors angry, so they went for their absolute favorite disparaging tactic, the sock puppet accusation. "Ms. Aspersions" and "Ms. Reliable Source" are notorious for their guarding of the page and not being open to discussions about including sources or ideas that do not match their preconceived views.

Poor data and confirmation bias in sock investigations

- When the IP data didn't support allegations of sock-puppet behavior, the next knee-jerk response was to say "well obviously they are still the same person because of style." As a computer scientist working on NLP, no researcher in the field would be comfortable making such a decision without scientific analysis. We use authorship identification models like this. At the bare minimum a simple analysis using Tf–idf. Science has tools for this now, and we should use them instead of going off of "vibes"

NPOV editors habitually accuse new users of being socks

- This isn't the first time that a new user attempting to fix NPOV issues has been accused of being Normal Op. There have been repeated mistakes in identification of socks attributed to this user, and they all rely on arguments based on style rather than scientific explanation or hard proof. It's an excuse to avoid WP:NOBITING, and used as an excuse by Ms. Aspersions and Ms. Reliable Sources to push the idea that anything disagreeing with their viewpoints counts as WP:TENDENTIOUS. In addition, any attempt at describing or defending talk page edits is either "doesn't contain enough information" or is WP:TEXTWALL. There is no "goldilocks zone" that seems to be accepted by editors on this topic, and it is used to dismiss criticism via "tl;dr."

Outstanding, unaddressed harassment concerns

- The ANI I filed seemed come to agreement on U6969's harassment, but after they were unblocked (due to a bad sock puppet investigation), we've all forgotten about that part. The dogs topic admins seem to be excusing or ignoring their harassment because that editor tends to agree with the non-neutral POVs shared by Ms. Aspersions and Ms. Reliable Sources. The worst of it being followed on my talk pages despite asking them to stop multiple times. The user has already resumed lying about an easily identifiable fact in a talk page where they know I can't defend against their baseless accusations, immediately after they became unblocked.

- Sorry for anything appearing to be WP:TEXTWALL, but each point needs addressing. I only just learned from Schazjmd that "essays" are guidelines, so I presume just as my WP:OTHERSITES point was dismissed, that WP:TEXTWALL are not as serious as I'd though, as long as the content is relevant.

PartyParrot42 (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that the page I originally proposed for deletion, has been closed by User:SWinxy (thank you). I didn't realize a page deletion would be considered so disruptive and I apologize for that. 😔

I sincerely worked with other editors on the talk page, and on my talk page, and on the AfD discussion page to ensure editors were up to date. I'd invite any editor, especially User:Dwanyewest (the de facto expert on the page) to go through any of our edits from that time frame and change if necessary. But so far I haven't seen any talk discussion or edits to that page that dispute our changes during the AfD process.

Related note: The AfD was closed, but the book notability infobox is still there, and should be removed by somebody (anybody) with edit access, as the issues were resolved by the edits from myself and Dwanyewest (Issue fixed by SWinxy)

PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

As I perceive this from the AfD side of things, your nomination was not disruptive. It was a bad nomination, but you created your account a week ago and didn't make trouble in the AfD. The {{Notability}} tag is removed. SWinxy (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I've had some time to do some other work, and it looks like in the meantime the editors have come to additional conclusions that help my case. Reviewing all the 5 points mentioned in the block, in order:

1. My edits on Talk:Pit bull were overly tendentious. I will try not to get sucked into endless arguments on sources unrelated to the original topic. I apologize for that.
2. My earlier edits at Talk:Dogsbite.org prior to block only focused on fixing the reference for a quote on the Dogsbite.org page. I mentioned how I couldn't find the reference as stated in the book referenced, but I was able to find the exact quote in an existing reference from Psychology Today. This came up as I was investigating the reference clean-up on Pit_Bull:_The_Battle_over_an_American_Icon, as the quote initially referenced that book when it was supposed to reference the Psychology Today article, which included some extra color around her original quote.
3. The initial AfD for the book was misguided but after sign-off by User:SWinxy and the help during the process from User:Dwanyewest to clean up citations I think it's clear I had the best interests of the page in mind, especially following the AfD "keep" vote.
4. Somewhat related to the first point again, I apologize for any further tendentious editing on the ANI page. I'm still new to wikipedia process and was following the advice from User:Unbiased6969 who told me to file the ANI (they pointed me to WP:DR which I read after I asked them to stop commenting on my talk page). I didn't realize filing it would be a big deal. The mechanics and required processes of wikipedia are still new to me, and I thought the user would know which process to use better than me.
5. I'm still not sure how to prove that I only just came up on reddit threads related to the page, where I'd found a user I thought was performing WP:NPOV edits. There was literally no way for me to know that an additional user had been causing issues on both reddit (their user was banned for harassing others on pit bull topics) and wikipedia before the ANI. The user was only mentioned at the end of the ANI, which is when I started looking further.

On concluding summary, about my account being new with not a lot of edits but somehow not seeming to be new, I'm still unsure what counts as acceptable proof my activity was new to wikipedia. I've worked in software so working on long chains of file diffs isn't a new or difficult skill. I regularly work on projects with hundreds of files and thousands of lines of code. What is new to me are the processes like ANI, so I've been following along with the wiki pages to get me through it.

I am not a sock for Normal Op. I'd protested this initially with no success, but the page now has detail clearing my username after further investigation.

If acceptable, I'd like to propose a 6-month WP:TBAN. I had really wanted to edit on the Soccer (dog) (aka Wishbone) page where I made some fixes, so I'd like to request this to be scoped to pit bulls and fighting dogs if possible. If I can only get a dog-related topic ban I'd be blocked from the article edits I'd planned to investigate, but I can find something else to work on in the meantime (like my edits to CDC) if that doesn't work.

Thanks for reading. I appreciate it.

PartyParrot42 (talk) 01:29, 21 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).

PartyParrot42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Include original points with more clarity. New: Addressed updated summary of the (misguided) AfD which is now closed out, and included updated evidence against being a sock account.

Decline reason:

WP:WALLOFTEXT. Yamla (talk) 10:30, 21 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.

Wondering if Geogene or Gråbergs Gråa Sång can help? Do you know how I should change my request so that it addresses all the points, but doesn't run into yet another WP:WALLOFTEXT warning? My text wasn't even a full page. I thought I had to address all the points for an unblock request, but because they threw 5 different accusations in it, with an additional paragraph summary claiming I'm not new, it's quite a lot of content to fit into a small paragraph.

I knew wikipedia had trouble getting new editors, but I didn't think it would be this onerous to deal with wikilawyering. I would have shortened it quite a bit, but it would probably be rejected for not addressing all the points.

Should I rework this? Is it possible to rework this? Or is this just how admins ice out users because they don't feel like reading half a page of text, or don't like a writing style?

One of the points in the block request included an accusation of tendentious editing on an article where all I did was correct a one-letter spelling error and fix one reference, and when I pointed out the diff it was "too much to read." I'm struggling, because the block notice asks to address all of these points, but I'm not even allowed to write enough text to do that?

PartyParrot42 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I have not read the above unblock attempts, so if WP:GAB failed you, I have nothing else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're asking them to downgrade your block to a topic ban, so you can contribute to Wikipedia in other topic areas? Geogene (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Right.

- They'd originally accused me of a bunch of tendentious editing and being a sock for another user. When I initially argued against it, admins refused to believe me, but it was disproven by their own wiki tools.

- Problem is if I address all the 5 points listed in the block (less than half a page), admins reject for WP:WALLOFTEXT, but I'm afraid to request for an unblock or topic ban with too little information, because I'm concerned I'll be accused of making too many unblock requests and being banned forever, hence asking for guidance before I request again.

- tl;dr I'm walking on eggshells refining this unban request, and am trying to avoid rejection via wikilawyering and reasons unrelated to the the ban itself. PartyParrot42 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Since you're interested in trading the block for a topic ban, I'll ping @Abecedere: again. As the blocking admin, they said they might be open to that, IIRC. I think it would remedy the concern about tendentious editing, which is the logged rationale for the block. Geogene (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)