User talk:Rumplestiltskin1992

Welcome!

Hello, Rumplestiltskin1992, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Woodroar (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk guidelines

Hi Rumplestiltskin1992, I reverted your comment at ANI because you've added it in the middle of another editor's statement. The best practice in these cases is to move the comment to the bottom of the section, but it wouldn't make much sense there. Feel free to move it there yourself along with any changes to put it in context. I would suggest avoiding the word "slander", however, as that may imply a legal threat. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see where things got confusing. User Uncle G wrote an _atrociously_ formatted post, embedding other people's contributions. And I'll admit, that mixed me up. It's now fixed. That being said, the wiki editors who are weighing in on this need to back it off. They doing the very groupthink harassment that they claim to oppose.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but Uncle G's post did not "embed" other people's contributions, though it linked discussions and articles, as any post on ANI should. I was struck by your "anon" post (and not just because of EEng's Shakespearean note): you accuse an IP editor of being anonymous, but I doubt very much that your real name is Rumplestiltskin1992. In a way, the IP is less anonymous than you, since their IP address may give away their geolocation. So please don't be so quick to accuse--glass houses and all that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's the actual text of Uncle G's post, all the way down to his signature. I'll highlight embeds:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson (2nd nomination) Single-purpose accounts: Ssmock (talk · contribs) Ibson.writes (talk · contribs) Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk · contribs) Timeline given by User:Koncorde: 2019-03-13T04:19:54: edit to Sri Lanka Navy by Mzmadmike 2019-03-13T04:20:27: edit to Sri Lanka Navy by Mzmadmike 2019-03-13T04:22:36: edit to Sri Lanka Army by Ibson.writes Edits by Trasel (talk · contribs) confirmed sockpuppet accounts to Michael Z. Williamson: edit edit edit edit edit Single-purpose accounts in the 2008 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson, whose edits were long-since stale for the 2013 checkuser check of Trasel: Thomas Gooch (talk · contribs) — "who I know" Logic11 (talk · contribs) Flight-ER-Doc (talk · contribs) Single-purpose accounts in 2008 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Wesley Rawles, whose edits were again long-since stale by the 2013 check-user check: Matt mg (talk · contribs) Mojoelvis (talk · contribs) Flight-ER-Doc (talk · contribs) one example out of several there of signature faking of an account that wasn't created (Special:Log/Kcs2c) until 7 months later. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 23#James Wesley Rawles (closed) Article subject: Mzmadmike (talk · contribs) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trasel/Archive points to this as a pattern, where at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse dormant accounts woke up to participate in the AFD discussion, as has happened here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It points out a connection between three people, the subject of this biographical article, James Wesley Rawles, and one Jeff Trasel. The Trasel sockpuppet-farm also edited James Wesley Rawles, not shown with diffs because there's quite a lot of it.

All of the new single-purpose accounts are, once again, failing to discuss sources and whether a biographical subject is properly documented by the world, making it likely that this 2nd AFD discussion will be as de-railed by that as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Wesley Rawles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson were.

In retrospect, the "did not materially affect outcome of AFD" conclusion in 2008 at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Trasel seems quite wrong.

Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

What you're calling "embeds" are DIFFs, which are required at ANI because they show which editor made which changes. Woodroar (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, I'm right, I'm just not using the correct terminology. My fundamental point, above, that the whole thing was structured in an extremely confusing manner, stands.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rumplestiltskin1992, I've again had to move your comments because they don't follow our standards. I'd suggest reading WP:TALK, I think it will help communicating across the project. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sad puppies without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, (a) I did adequately document the change. (b) Your reference to the talk page creates a self-referential circle. The article says something is, therefore it is justification for the assertion. Any documentary examination of the actual nominees that year (yes, it's been done, no, I don't have it to hand) demonstrates that, if anything, diversity was _increased_ in at least one year. It's also rather painfully telling that immediately following the whole SP thing, that for a group committed to "diversity" the vast majority of Hugo winners were Old White People....which can be proven by examining the Hugo winners group photos. Bottom line, the wiki entry _calling it an anti-diversity_ movement, and using an op-ed piece to "document" that, then self-referencing in talk, is unacceptable for a "fact-based" environment. The only thing I did was remove the "anti-diversity" item. That's it. I'll document the why of this in the Talk page, but I'm going to redo the remove.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for the discretionary sanctions posts on Pinkbeast and Letcreate123 and I'm not seeing them. Did you forget, or is this an "I'm going to ignore documented wiki standards and arbitrarily enforce my opinion." I'd be happy to lump you in with the misconduct/vandalism posting that will be going up over this whole... mess, if that's what you want.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even remotely interested in actively editing articles about politics, it just happened that I came across the recent incident at WP:ANI, and went right in to see if I could do something about the canvassing (heck, I haven't even voted at the Williamson AfD). Editors taking interest in the incident is different from editors taking interest in the actual topics at hand. And please quit it with the harassment. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You rolled back a correctly cited error, for an egregious violation of standards (sweet baby jeebus - misses 5 of 6 criteria???), and the next thing I know I'm looking at sanctions? And you're talking to _me_ about harassment? My entire interaction with wiki for a week has been an unending stream of harassment, starting with being labelled as a sockpuppet by someone who couldn't be bothered with asking a question. AFAICT, and with no evidence to the contrary, you are part of that harassment. So.. until such time as I see matching sanctions on all participants in that kerfuffle, I regard this is politically motivated harassment. It's up to you to demonstrate otherwise.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]