Jump to content

User talk:Tamsier/2015

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


Warning

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

He and his chums have attacked my character numerous times see the Serer related talk pages. I have not even bothered to respond to their silly attacks because I have a life. I came back after couple of years when they hounded me from the project. Because I've created some portal before, I was asked to help create others. That's the reason why I came back. Whilst working on those, I went through some of the articles and talks pages and couldn't believe the attacks they directed at me trying to destroy my character and damage my credibility. My contribution to Wiki on Sub-Saharan African related articles speak for themselves whether they like it or not. I do not need their approval. I am not perfect. No one is perfect, and every article can be improved. If you see an issue with an article, fix it and move on rather than making false accusation trying to discredit an editor as they did three years ago. I tagged those articles for the reasons I have given at RSN. I made my case succinctly regarding the unreliability of the sources cited and for which they were cited. Galvan, may be reliable but only in the context of Serer customary land law and lamanic system (which is what his book was about) because that is his remit. But he is not qualified to go outside that remit by making expansive claims without first sourcing them from reliable sources. That is the reason why I tagged Galvan's citation. Not only is Étienne not qualified on the subject and went against mainstream sources, but he confused two facts and prescribed his unsubstantiated opinion. First, the Guelowars arrived in Sine in the 14th century, see Sarr (as stated in RSN). Second, there were already Serers in Sine, so for Étienne to come up with that ridiculous notion is unscholarly. Last but not least, Étienne quoted Gravrand for his dubious claims, but only gave the surname of Gravrand and the year of publication of his book (according to the editor's insertion). Even scholars have to quote sources in full when making such claims. I have never seen a scholar quote like Étienne. Never in my life. For that reason I tagged him too. I tagged them for different reasons which are justified. I have stated my point at RSN. Notice that the editor who opened that discussion provided nothing in return that rebukes my argument. For someone who once claimed to be very good at selecting sources, I'm surprised he didn't picked that up. As such, I am surprised why RSN didn't ask him to revert his edit or at the very least provided reliable sources that substantiate his claims. I have scoured the internet and the books in my possession trying to find reliable sources that backs up his claim but found absolutely nothing other than the sources he inserted, which means he was cherry picking, and as someone who have a long history with this editor, I know exactly why. Tamsier (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha ha! This doesn't look good for Doug Weller does it? I think you were too hasty Drmies. In a day or two I would have saved you the trouble. I was on my way out of Wikipedia. For posterity, Drmies along with Doug were two of the main administrators that hounded me from the project three years ago along with personal attacks and character assassinations directed at me on several Serer related talk pages. See Serer talk pages. Drmies is highly involved and if he was smart he would have left it to another administrator to do the blocking. See my archives from 2012. Drmies, you were too hasty. I could have redeemed you within a day or two. And lets get this straight. Doug Weller cited some unreliable sources for the quotes stated (see relevant talk pages referred to above by Drmies). I tagged his edits. He took it to RSN and those articles became the subject of discussion. I there posted my comments, sources and reasons why those sources cited by Doug were unreliable so that future editors are aware and can deal with the issue as they see fit. Maybe I am loosing my mind, but is Drmies telling me that he wanted me to conceal from future editors why does sources are unreliable for what they were cited for? Those articles were affected by the RSN discussion that's why they were added there and rightly so. What Drmies is actually telling me is to break one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, i.e. discussing things on talk pages and reaching a consensus. Not that I care either way blocked or not, but Drmies wanted the privilege to block me however he used his admin tools too hastily and blocked on the wrong thing, especially after I've posted my references on the relevant talk pages and clearly stated that I am done with this issue someone else can deal with it. Forget about me for a moment because I was going anyway, but other editors interested in contributing to Wikipedia may lose all confidence on admins when some behave this way. If this is what it means to be an admin i.e abusing your power for your friends I think its pathetic. Drmies has tarnished his reputation and that of Doug.
Then again, Drmies has never acted with consensus. He once deleted the Koox article because another editor who took a personal dislike of me asked him and he did inspite of the notability of the article, which was well sourced. There was no discussion other than the other editor and I.
Drmies had a grudge because I once opposed one of her candidates at an admin vote. Excuse typos I'm on mobile . Tamsier (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not being here to create an encyclopedia, see this ANI discussion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 08:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your decision Bishonen. I reported an editor for systematic provocation, insults and character assassination to ANI and in your judgment you felt I deserved to be blocked. I would like to thank you for taking the time to examine the case as diligently as you have. And I fully accept your decision to block. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Despite our disagreements, I'd like to thank you for your support of Malik Shabazz. I had hoped and tried to get his Admin status restored but he chose to retire. He's a real loss and I hope that at some time he returns. Doug Weller (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
He is a brilliant editor and brilliant admin and I wish him all the best in whatever he chooses to do. Sometimes people just want to move on, but I hope in his case he returns one day. Tamsier (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am writing to submit an unblock request. I was blocked 3 years ago for WP:NOTHERE. My passion in helping to develop African related articles at the time, also led me to engage in many disputes with certain editors. I have taken fully responsibility for my part in those disagreements and admit that I could have been more collaborative with editors I thought I could not get along with. My sharp togue (or in this case hot fingers) got me into situations I wished I never was in, as it takes a hell of a lot of time - commenting back and forth and ends up achiving nothing. This block is 3 years old, and my intention when I come back are to help develop the project in a collaborative manner without the battleground attitude. Despite my block, even the blocking admin stated : "However, I believe Tamsier has knowledge and skills that could potentially help the encyclopedia; if he writes a reasonable unblock request, which shows some awareness of the problems with his own editing, it should certainly be entertained." It is this knowledge and skills that I would like to employ for the benefit of the project. I have long moved on from the person I was 3 years ago and wish to come back and help as much as I can. Cheers! Tamsier (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Block has been lifted. Please make sure you pay attention to the conditions. SQLQuery me! 20:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Tamsier, I'm not over-impressed by your comment below: "That passion have however gotten me into a lot of trouble with certain English Wiki editors. On my part, I do take some responsibility for that as I could have been gentler in disputes." (my emphasis) as your lengthy and vitriolic personal attacks were 100% your fault. Totally, 100%, you understand? The responsibility for them was all yours. And the "certain English Wiki editors" comment could come across as a bit pointy. But that could be due to the subtleties of different uses of English in different parts of the world, and I'll assume good faith and accept your statement that you have moved on and hold no grudges. In line with the blocking admin's comments at the time, I'm prepared to consider an unblock now, after a consultation - @Bishonen: What do you think? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Tamsier's unblock request sounds good: moving on without the battleground attitude is exactly what's wanted, and three years is a long time. However, I too am unimpressed by his comments below, at "Please come back and help us in project Africa", which sound a bit different. Unless Drmies and Doug Weller, who have more previous experience of the user than me, support an immediate unblock, I would rather put up his unblock request for community decision at WP:AN. Bishonen | talk 10:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC).
Yep, that makes sense. Let's see what they might say (and see how Tamsier might respond). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
(Oh, and I'll add that I have read through the whole history of this case, which was not my most pleasant experience. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC))
Tamsier, I'm going to be blunt. I have always been in favor of more representation of African subjects and have even spent money on sources besides of course time to improve some of them. Your enthusiasm for improving these is great. But I had a serious problem with your sourcing and content, which I think comes from your sincere belief in the old Serer religion and its truth, that the Serer have been in Africa forever, etc. This has made it difficult for you to follow our policies and guidelines when editing Serer related articles. I think that any unblock request needs to be made at WP:ANI via your talk page - there will be people who will repost comments you make here to your ANI request. I'm sure nobody, including you, wants a repeat of what happened that led to your block. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I would love for almost anyone to come back, including Tamsier. But yes, we spent a lot of time and energy dealing with the Serer issues--I think I have a big fat file full of articles and copies here still, and Interlibrary Loan worked overtime for a while for me. It was good French practice, though. RS is one of our pillars (Doug was probably more focused on neutrality), and that was a big problem for me, besides the ... passion sometimes displayed. Putting the blame on "certain English" editors also makes me question the request. What I could go for is an unblock that either has a Serer topic ban, or a 1R restriction, maybe both. Tamsier, if you can live with that, I can support that. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all. I am particularly pleased to have Doug Weller and Drmies commenting on this request because I feel that there input is very important especially if I'm to return here and contribute collaboratively moving forward. Good move @Bishonen: for pinging them. Regarding the first concern raised by @Boing! said Zebedee: (and others), that is merely an English language subtlety. Also, I was copying and pasting my response to the editor from my French talk page to here - with a little bit of edition for context. I even made couple of typos in my original reply to the editor at my French talk page and had to edit it later. Just to clarify, I take full responsibility for my block and my actions leading to my block, and accepted the decision of the blocking admin as stated all those years ago. We all use the Queen's English differently depending on where we find ourselves in, and there are bound to be subtitles. I am willing to accept @Drmies:'s 1R restriction on all Serer related articles up to 6 months if that's is okay with him. After that, it can be reviewed by an admin. I was not working only on serer articles but I can appreciate that's where he knows me from. @ @Doug Weller:, when I create any Serer/ African related article, believe me, the most important thing that goes in my mind is "to give it everything I have with respect to Wiki policies so that it can be viewed as respectable and scholarly just like any other non-African related article (especially history, etc.)." For me, it stops being "just another Wiki article" (no judgment meant here), but I feel I must give it all my level best and scour as much sources in my library here and documents in my position to give it any respectability whatsoever. And as we all know, many people (and I'm not referring to Wiki or its editors – I’m talking about in generality here – in the real world) do not respect Africans and their history and culture. So for me, it is extremely important that I put the hard work into that article and go through as many sources, many of which are not even available online - just to give the article any merit or sense of respectability with respect to Wiki policy and scholarly refs. In other words, it seems like we have more to prove, and I'm not referring to Wiki here. This is bigger than Wiki. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, it defeats the purpose if any African related article is unbalanced or unscholarly. When I come across a notable African article and it is poorly sourced or god forbid has no sources whatsoever, it gets on my skin because no matter how notable the subject, it seems we have more to prove, and I take it upon myself to source and copy edit it. A good example of what I'm talking about is the Sundiata Keita article I worked on all those years ago (see its talk page if you want). Yes, my tone in the talk page could have been gentler, but I was disappointed that any African would have allowed that article to stand in the state it was without intervening. Once I've tackled the issues in that article, I moved on. That's how I approach my edits. And as I always say, any article can be improved. Working together, and going to the talk pages to discuss issues respectfully with one another – in a collaborative and supportive manner, is what I plan to focus on moving forward. I think it is unfortunate that many Black/Africans have left the project. To me, it does me no good nor does it do any good for Africa or the Wiki project if any African article I've created/edited is seen as weak, unbalanced or unscholarly. As you can appreciate, even editors who have had disagreements with me in the past agreed that I'm not always wrong when it comes to African history/culture (as confirmed by sources - as I've read a lot over the years). Moving forward, if I am to create any more articles, I will create them in my sandbox and when finished, invite you and others to view it or submit it to AFC for approval before uploading to main space. My return here is to help develop the project in my area of expertise. I have long moved on from the issues 3 years ago, and I hold no grudges. I am much older and wiser and there are more important things in life than holding on to grudges or being hot headed. Therefore, when I return here, my only plan is working collaboratively with others and avoid any battleground attitude. As, I've stated above, it takes a hell of a lot of time out of you and it achieves nothing. It derails things and its is very taxing not to menion bad for my mental health. It takes a lot of you. Sad that I didn't realised this 3 or so years ago. However I was young and foolish then. I'm much older and wiser now, and my return here is for positivity only. No negativity. I would like to add that, it is also extremely important to me that I have the full support of Drmies and Doug Weller. This is why I think Bish was wise to ping them to this request. The full support of Drmies and Doug is very important and it would help things moving forward. Despite our differences in the past, I do respect their wok and experience here, and hope to start afresh with both of them in a collaborative and supportive way. If these two editors feel that they would be unable to support me because of what has happened previously, then with regret I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for their contribution here, however, I ask that, this request be denied. To me, the total support of Doug and Drmies is very important to me if we are to even think about moving forward. Whatever their decision, I totally respect, but I hope they can give me that opportunity to show them a different side to me and/or my work. Again, I hold no grudges. And I thank everyone for their contribution here, and hope to work collaborative in the future with everyone for the benefit of the project. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Boing!, I've read through the history too, and, in my opinion, a 1RR restriction is insufficient. If we are going to unblock without going via AN, Tamsier needs to first accept an indefinite topic ban from Serer related pages, broadly construed. Tamsier, please read WP:TBAN to see how a topic ban works. It would leave you free to improve pages that are not related to Serer. If that is not acceptable to you, I believe your unblock request should take its chances at WP:AN. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC).
I agree. If Tamsier will accept a topic ban from Serer related pages edits, broadly construed plus a 1RR restriction (which can be appealed, say, after 12 months of other work?), then I think there is sufficient consensus here for an unblock. Without a Serer topic ban, I would not unblock without an appeal to WP:AN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I can agree to that, but I'd like "broadly construed" added, and probably "pages" changed to "edits". Doug Weller talk 14:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Me too--what Doug says, and the others. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Adjusted, as suggested. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
OK. Topic ban from Serer edits and 1RR for all edits, both broadly construed and to be appealed to the community (WP:AN) no sooner that 12 months from now. Tamsien, please see WP:1RR for the definition of that rule. The admins here are agreed, as you can see; now it's for you to decide whether or not to accept commuting your block to these restrictions. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC).
That's fine. Thank you Drmies and Doug. Tamsier (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Good. Please see the formal notice below. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tamsier/2015&oldid=877882195"