/Archive1 | /Archive2 | /Archive3 | /Archive4
Hello, Scientelensia!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Vanderwaalforces (
talk)
10:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
|
The Death Barnstar | ||
For your efforts contributing to the page Palestinian genocide accusation. Awarded by Cdjp1 ( talk) 12:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC) |
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Like i said, my bad for not pinging all but i just checked the last 2 pages of history and should have done better than that. Kante4 ( talk) 15:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello there,
Just wanted to say sorry for a comment from early October. I deeply regret having said and pre judged you which wasn't alright. I haven't really seen you around since and I hope you're ok and that you're doing well where ever you are in the world :). Homerethegreat ( talk) 11:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is POV tag in Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. The discussion is about the topic Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. The discussion doesn't mention you specifically, because it's about the relevance (or not) of the tag, not about you specifically. Thank you. Boud ( talk) 12:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Scientelensia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Reactions from Wizarding World Actors in Response to JK Rowling’s Comments on Gender and Sex".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗ plicit 06:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
19:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Sources supplied do not justify such a strong claim. If anything, they concur that such a claim is controversial and not a widely held belief.)
ChurCuz is interaction banned from Scientelensia; I'll collapse this interaction that happened while I was creating the ban template.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
21:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
|
MOVED SECTION
Scientelensia, if I understand correctly, your
latest message – sent after the currently open unblock request – is still about ChurCuz, who is
indefinitely banned from interacting with you. The ban explicitly came with an informal but strong expectation that Scientelensia refrains from interacting with [ChurCuz] too
. I'm not sure if you had seen that, but now you're aware. I'm unwilling to review an unblock request if the main concerns still appear to be summarizable as "I'm blocked, they are not, this is unfair". You'll survive waiting a month or at least for someone who is more easily convinced.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
18:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Scientelensia ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Blocks are not punishment. They are made to stop disruption. This reads more like a legal brief than an unblock request. Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 01:59, 14 February 2024 (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.
Scientelensia ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I’m well aware that I erred, and am willing to move forward from my mistakes. My edits merited a block owing to the fact that they violated WP:BLPRESTORE in that I added back content to articles after it had been reverted by other users. This was in good faith, yet it is clear to me now the mistakes I made. Moving forward, I will be more careful and use talk pages to discuss edits I disagree with more frequently, being sure to act with more civility. I will continue to edit pages such as Yusuf Abu al-Haggag, Alexis Mac Allister, Jack Grealish and Palestinian genocide accusation, which I have created/significantly contributed to/revamped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientelensia ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Thank you; I think the block has lost its preventative need if there was any. I'm sorry for the time you had to spend arguing against it, and for the time others had to review the walls of text we built together. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 22:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The first thing that will happen after an unblock is not such drama. I love contributing to articles and will continue to do so. You can block me again if I lie. I don’t know why you insist on doing this to me. Also, I have no idea what @ Deepfriedokra means by this, sorry… Scientelensia ( talk) 20:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Scientelensia ( talk) 11:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I’m a fan of cookies :)
@ Tamzin:
Dear Tamzin,
I am approaching you because I have seen you to be a friendly and neutral administrator who wishes to do what is right. I wanted to raise concerns to an administrator about a particular user; when I did so before I was largely ignored. I also intend to tell you about the conduct of another administrator. If possible, could you please give your opinion on both situations and advise me on whether any of the matters should be taken further, and, if not, perhaps you could advise me on what next to do.
Having been concerned with the behaviour of a user named ChurCuz on the page Darwin Núñez, I asked a prominent user for aid. I admitted that a dispute between me and ChurCuz had blame on both sides, yet I believe that their edits were destructive and that in this case I was in the right. I said:
Dear @ Doug Weller,
Given your experience and particularly your experiences with dealing with this user before, I was wondering if you might take a look into the recent behaviour of ChurCuz, who I find is consistently rude and even destructive on Wikipedia pages. Despite the fact that this user regularly removes comments against them on their talk page to present a better outlook, sanctions enforced upon them for various reasons (e.g. edit warring) can still be observed here, as well as: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. The full list can be found here: [75]. The user has also shown how they make unnecessary yet constant reverts/display bad behaviour here, as well as: [76], [77]: and I’m sure these are not the only recent examples. As you can see, this has been occurring for some time (a period of years) yet the user has not seemed to have learnt from sanctions (as other have) despite changing their name from RossButsy to ChurCuz. The point of me bringing up older engagements is to prove this point. I myself was alerted to their recent bad behaviour in a disagreement here in which I was not entirely blameless, but in which the user gave no valid reason for their reverts and did not apply consistent policies to other pages in a somewhat hypocritical manner. The user has not responded to my last queries, before which he dismissed me unfairly and attacked me ad hominem.
As a user of great experience yourself, is there anything to be done about this user, if needs be?
Thank you very much,
– Scientelensia ( talk) 12:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
To which it was replied by User:Doug Weller: “I am not convinced that there is good reason to hope this editor will reform.” Similarly, the administrator 331dot stated: “I concur, I see little hope for reform.” On this page, a subsequent interaction between me and ChurCuz followed, which (if you wish – it might be helpful if you have the time) can be read here.
The user ToBeFree decided to give ChurCuz an interaction ban (from me) and independently of this, decided to give me a block for a month, hence why I am writing to you on my own talk page. They then decided the case should be “thought of as done for now”. I must admit to feeling a sense of injustice, which I previously explained:
“While I do not challenge that I was blocked, I must admit to feeling a certain injustice about the magnitude of the punishment when compared to the punishment of the other user (if you wish, please read the whole dispute here, as this will help you to understand my case as well as the wrongdoing of the other user, who I believe did not receive appropriate punishment for their lack of civility). As I said above: “Despite the contributions of other editors… in saying that “I am not convinced that there is good reason to hope this editor [the user ChurCuz] will reform” and “I concur, I see little hope for reform”, it is me who receives the larger punishment whereas ChurCuz ‘gets off’ virtually scot-free without even the need for reform… it appears to me (in my opinion) that I am being treated more harshly than this other editor for little reason; they have also been warned about conduct and violated it (arguably to a greater extent(?)… who knows…). I am not saying that I do not share part of the blame, yet I feel my punishment is unjustified when comparing it to that of ChurCuz. And yes, I still regard WP:NOTTHEM.””
“I must clarify. I am taking into account WP:NOTTHEM, yet “I merely question the fact that my block is for so long when I personally believe that I am not in the wrong. Many of my edits have been wrong in the past, but surely it was clear to you [the administrator] that I have moved past that and could willingly admit this?” Additionally, though I know the other user’s faults are not the reason for my block, it is only natural to compare our experiences.”
“I express my thoughts here also: “I can assure you that such a block is not required, and I want to say that I only went too far as I felt that the other user was being hypocritical. I assure you with all my heart that the behaviour, which stopped a few days previously once I considered my actions, will not continue”. I hope you will consider my case.”
ToBeFree approached me with a tone of condescension, which you can see above. They even admitted this. However, my feelings of injustice were heightened when I saw the sympathy that they had given ChurCuz in placing the interaction ban, with ChurCuz evidently acting more civilly than normal to gain further favour. This can be seen here.
I tried to separate out the issues of ChurCuz’s unpunished conduct and my own punished conduct, yet ToBeFree, to my annoyance, kept conflating the ideas (and is still doing so in my second unblock request, it seems like they are trying to ensure I remain blocked). At one point I said:
I can assure you that such a block is not required, and I want to say that I only went too far as I felt that the other user was being hypocritical. I assure you with all my heart that the behaviour, which stopped a few days previously once I considered my actions, will not continue. Indeed, when looking at the page in question you can see that my recent edits have had edit summaries of the utmost quality.
ToBeFree then brought a list of offences I had committed, though some I believe were arguable such as neutrality concerns when I was writing part of the lead for a footballing article (sourced). It was fair, and the offences do not make for good reading. However, I was astonished that they did not do the same for ChurCuz, despite both ChurCuz and I being blocked by ToBeFree in the past (when this occurred, ChurCuz received the much harsher punishment in my opinion with justification for similar actions). I said:
“I’m not defending my conduct, just stating that I have moved past it. If you look at my recent edits here ( [78]), you can see that I have tried from henceforth to act with greater civility. I am willing to show that I have moved past the actions of this damning list above.
…
“Also, I know that you blocked me before, and we have history (I would plead to you to ignore this), yet if you look at the articles on my user page you can see that my efforts are mostly invested well, such as my contributions to: Yusuf Abu al-Haggag, Alexis Mac Allister, Jack Grealish and Palestinian genocide accusation, for which I received a barnstar.”
During this, a further interaction between me and ChurCuz occurred which I believe elucidated my point on ChurCuz’s unsuitability to editing (footballing) articles. You can read it here. I then said to ToBeFree:
“I appreciate this. I’m not trying to sound annoying, but the other user has also done many of such things and has received no punishment, hence my calls of injustice/unfairness.”
ToBeFree later said:
“I personally think that the best arguments for unblocking are future contributions that are currently prevented by the block. Not others' behavior and not really past contributions unrelated to the block, although you can of course refer to them as a kind of proof that your proposed future edits will actually look as promised.”
My argument for unblocking was not the actions of the other user. The best part of my unblock summaries were intentions for the future and past contributions that prove I am willing to work constructively on Wikipedia. ToBeFree referenced my block in the past (fair enough), to which I replied: “the other user also has a block log and has ignored past warnings like you say I am, but the punishment they have received is somehow much less. I’m struggling to comprehend this”.
In fact, my main qualm was that an interaction ban would not stop ChurCuz from violating other pages. ToBeFree (who, in my opinion, ridiculed my concerns), in my eyes, had failed to deal with the very essence of the matter: ChurCuz’s actions. I warned people about ChurCuz, but little after the interaction ban their behaviour, which violated normal formats on footballing articles on Wikipedia despite my recent edit summaries on the page Darwin Núñez, continued in full force:
“Now, ChurCuz is back at it, making edits on Darwin Nunez which are clearly incorrect (now they know the one who was wishing to prevent them is unable to). I could not get through to them before and it seems nobody can; they do not stop disregarding usual formats.
Do you now see how this infuriates me that they are allowed to continue, despite having a host of evidence against them ( User talk:Doug Weller#ChurCuz)?”
I may have been being sensitive here, but I added:
“Finally, @ ToBeFree, you ridicule me in a way that is unfair: “the main concerns still appear to be summarizable as "I'm blocked, they are not, this is unfair".” ”
I wanted to explain my reasons for highlighting the behaviour. I said to ToBeFree:
“But how do you explain the disparity in the punishments? My reason for asking is because I want to see appropriate punishment given to the more aggressive user, ChurCuz (with whom I no longer interact), who will carry on unless this occurs. My reason for asking is not because I am whining.”
To these concerns ToBeFree came out with:
“Fine. Someone will notice, perhaps even me; someone will deal with it [ChurCuz’s behaviour]. Wikipedia has 46,946,034 users; it doesn't need your monitoring, while blocked, of a user who is interaction banned towards you. Focus on your block until you're unblocked, please.”
In this, I believe that it becomes more apparent that ToBeFree acted wrongly in that they failed to deal with the original problem despite their attention having been raised to it on numerous occasions (the whole point of their involvement in the first place was to deal appropriately with ChurCuz). Despite my only trying to help in the best way I could while I was blocked, ToBeFree replied snappishly and dismissed my concerns despite admitting their correctness.
Overall, I’m not quite sure where to go next and I thank you now if you got here as I appreciate the great volume of text. I clearly didn’t cover myself in glory with this, and I erred numerous times (for which I was punished). However, my main concern is still the unregulated behaviour of ChurCuz. Second, I am somewhat bemused by the resolution skills of ToBeFree, which seem vastly inferior to those of (e.g.) Hammersoft, SandyGeorgia and yourself. It is very hard and also not needed to punish an administrator, but I only request that their resolutions of disputes in the future be monitored.
Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, I want to show that my “behavioural issues will cease; I want to show I have learnt my lesson”. Hence my (second) unblock request:
“I’m well aware that I erred, and am willing to move forward from my mistakes. My edits merited a block owing to the fact that they violated WP:BLPRESTORE in that I added back content to articles after it had been reverted by other users. This was in good faith, yet it is clear to me now the mistakes I made. Moving forward, I will be more careful and use talk pages to discuss edits I disagree with more frequently, being sure to act with more civility. I will continue to edit pages such as Yusuf Abu al-Haggag, Alexis Mac Allister, Jack Grealish and Palestinian genocide accusation, which I have created/significantly contributed to/revamped.”
Thank you so much for reading; I would be grateful for your opinions.
Yours gratefully & sincerely,
— Scientelensia ( talk) 11:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Sources of quotations: User talk:Scientelensia#February 2024, User talk:Doug Weller#ChurCuz
References
Scientelensia, you have two prior topic bans (in GenSex and Palestine-Israel). Callanecc notified you of a 12-month topic ban in Gensex (expired in December 2023) in this discussion. Today, you returned to the exact same topic (actors who have defended Rowling) to derail a considerably productive discussion at Talk:J. K. Rowling with this long digression to content not covered in any scholarly source. I have stated elsewhere that your first topic ban may have been overly harsh, but I am now quite concerned that you don't yet seem to understand proper use of a talk page, or see that your post has disrupted what had been a very productive discussion thus far. I request that you put a hat (with the {{ cot}}/{{ cob}} templates) around that entire discussion; your point is made in the first sentence (actors who support her have been removed), and if you want those actors included, then please find a scholarly source that mentions them. Otherwise, it looks like another trip to WP:AE might be in order; you don't seem to have taken on board why your posts in 2022 were disruptive. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
/Archive1 | /Archive2 | /Archive3 | /Archive4
Hello, Scientelensia!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Vanderwaalforces (
talk)
10:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
|
The Death Barnstar | ||
For your efforts contributing to the page Palestinian genocide accusation. Awarded by Cdjp1 ( talk) 12:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC) |
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Like i said, my bad for not pinging all but i just checked the last 2 pages of history and should have done better than that. Kante4 ( talk) 15:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello there,
Just wanted to say sorry for a comment from early October. I deeply regret having said and pre judged you which wasn't alright. I haven't really seen you around since and I hope you're ok and that you're doing well where ever you are in the world :). Homerethegreat ( talk) 11:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is POV tag in Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. The discussion is about the topic Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. The discussion doesn't mention you specifically, because it's about the relevance (or not) of the tag, not about you specifically. Thank you. Boud ( talk) 12:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Scientelensia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Reactions from Wizarding World Actors in Response to JK Rowling’s Comments on Gender and Sex".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗ plicit 06:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
19:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Sources supplied do not justify such a strong claim. If anything, they concur that such a claim is controversial and not a widely held belief.)
ChurCuz is interaction banned from Scientelensia; I'll collapse this interaction that happened while I was creating the ban template.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
21:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
|
MOVED SECTION
Scientelensia, if I understand correctly, your
latest message – sent after the currently open unblock request – is still about ChurCuz, who is
indefinitely banned from interacting with you. The ban explicitly came with an informal but strong expectation that Scientelensia refrains from interacting with [ChurCuz] too
. I'm not sure if you had seen that, but now you're aware. I'm unwilling to review an unblock request if the main concerns still appear to be summarizable as "I'm blocked, they are not, this is unfair". You'll survive waiting a month or at least for someone who is more easily convinced.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
18:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Scientelensia ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Blocks are not punishment. They are made to stop disruption. This reads more like a legal brief than an unblock request. Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 01:59, 14 February 2024 (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.
Scientelensia ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I’m well aware that I erred, and am willing to move forward from my mistakes. My edits merited a block owing to the fact that they violated WP:BLPRESTORE in that I added back content to articles after it had been reverted by other users. This was in good faith, yet it is clear to me now the mistakes I made. Moving forward, I will be more careful and use talk pages to discuss edits I disagree with more frequently, being sure to act with more civility. I will continue to edit pages such as Yusuf Abu al-Haggag, Alexis Mac Allister, Jack Grealish and Palestinian genocide accusation, which I have created/significantly contributed to/revamped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientelensia ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Thank you; I think the block has lost its preventative need if there was any. I'm sorry for the time you had to spend arguing against it, and for the time others had to review the walls of text we built together. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 22:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The first thing that will happen after an unblock is not such drama. I love contributing to articles and will continue to do so. You can block me again if I lie. I don’t know why you insist on doing this to me. Also, I have no idea what @ Deepfriedokra means by this, sorry… Scientelensia ( talk) 20:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Scientelensia ( talk) 11:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I’m a fan of cookies :)
@ Tamzin:
Dear Tamzin,
I am approaching you because I have seen you to be a friendly and neutral administrator who wishes to do what is right. I wanted to raise concerns to an administrator about a particular user; when I did so before I was largely ignored. I also intend to tell you about the conduct of another administrator. If possible, could you please give your opinion on both situations and advise me on whether any of the matters should be taken further, and, if not, perhaps you could advise me on what next to do.
Having been concerned with the behaviour of a user named ChurCuz on the page Darwin Núñez, I asked a prominent user for aid. I admitted that a dispute between me and ChurCuz had blame on both sides, yet I believe that their edits were destructive and that in this case I was in the right. I said:
Dear @ Doug Weller,
Given your experience and particularly your experiences with dealing with this user before, I was wondering if you might take a look into the recent behaviour of ChurCuz, who I find is consistently rude and even destructive on Wikipedia pages. Despite the fact that this user regularly removes comments against them on their talk page to present a better outlook, sanctions enforced upon them for various reasons (e.g. edit warring) can still be observed here, as well as: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. The full list can be found here: [75]. The user has also shown how they make unnecessary yet constant reverts/display bad behaviour here, as well as: [76], [77]: and I’m sure these are not the only recent examples. As you can see, this has been occurring for some time (a period of years) yet the user has not seemed to have learnt from sanctions (as other have) despite changing their name from RossButsy to ChurCuz. The point of me bringing up older engagements is to prove this point. I myself was alerted to their recent bad behaviour in a disagreement here in which I was not entirely blameless, but in which the user gave no valid reason for their reverts and did not apply consistent policies to other pages in a somewhat hypocritical manner. The user has not responded to my last queries, before which he dismissed me unfairly and attacked me ad hominem.
As a user of great experience yourself, is there anything to be done about this user, if needs be?
Thank you very much,
– Scientelensia ( talk) 12:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
To which it was replied by User:Doug Weller: “I am not convinced that there is good reason to hope this editor will reform.” Similarly, the administrator 331dot stated: “I concur, I see little hope for reform.” On this page, a subsequent interaction between me and ChurCuz followed, which (if you wish – it might be helpful if you have the time) can be read here.
The user ToBeFree decided to give ChurCuz an interaction ban (from me) and independently of this, decided to give me a block for a month, hence why I am writing to you on my own talk page. They then decided the case should be “thought of as done for now”. I must admit to feeling a sense of injustice, which I previously explained:
“While I do not challenge that I was blocked, I must admit to feeling a certain injustice about the magnitude of the punishment when compared to the punishment of the other user (if you wish, please read the whole dispute here, as this will help you to understand my case as well as the wrongdoing of the other user, who I believe did not receive appropriate punishment for their lack of civility). As I said above: “Despite the contributions of other editors… in saying that “I am not convinced that there is good reason to hope this editor [the user ChurCuz] will reform” and “I concur, I see little hope for reform”, it is me who receives the larger punishment whereas ChurCuz ‘gets off’ virtually scot-free without even the need for reform… it appears to me (in my opinion) that I am being treated more harshly than this other editor for little reason; they have also been warned about conduct and violated it (arguably to a greater extent(?)… who knows…). I am not saying that I do not share part of the blame, yet I feel my punishment is unjustified when comparing it to that of ChurCuz. And yes, I still regard WP:NOTTHEM.””
“I must clarify. I am taking into account WP:NOTTHEM, yet “I merely question the fact that my block is for so long when I personally believe that I am not in the wrong. Many of my edits have been wrong in the past, but surely it was clear to you [the administrator] that I have moved past that and could willingly admit this?” Additionally, though I know the other user’s faults are not the reason for my block, it is only natural to compare our experiences.”
“I express my thoughts here also: “I can assure you that such a block is not required, and I want to say that I only went too far as I felt that the other user was being hypocritical. I assure you with all my heart that the behaviour, which stopped a few days previously once I considered my actions, will not continue”. I hope you will consider my case.”
ToBeFree approached me with a tone of condescension, which you can see above. They even admitted this. However, my feelings of injustice were heightened when I saw the sympathy that they had given ChurCuz in placing the interaction ban, with ChurCuz evidently acting more civilly than normal to gain further favour. This can be seen here.
I tried to separate out the issues of ChurCuz’s unpunished conduct and my own punished conduct, yet ToBeFree, to my annoyance, kept conflating the ideas (and is still doing so in my second unblock request, it seems like they are trying to ensure I remain blocked). At one point I said:
I can assure you that such a block is not required, and I want to say that I only went too far as I felt that the other user was being hypocritical. I assure you with all my heart that the behaviour, which stopped a few days previously once I considered my actions, will not continue. Indeed, when looking at the page in question you can see that my recent edits have had edit summaries of the utmost quality.
ToBeFree then brought a list of offences I had committed, though some I believe were arguable such as neutrality concerns when I was writing part of the lead for a footballing article (sourced). It was fair, and the offences do not make for good reading. However, I was astonished that they did not do the same for ChurCuz, despite both ChurCuz and I being blocked by ToBeFree in the past (when this occurred, ChurCuz received the much harsher punishment in my opinion with justification for similar actions). I said:
“I’m not defending my conduct, just stating that I have moved past it. If you look at my recent edits here ( [78]), you can see that I have tried from henceforth to act with greater civility. I am willing to show that I have moved past the actions of this damning list above.
…
“Also, I know that you blocked me before, and we have history (I would plead to you to ignore this), yet if you look at the articles on my user page you can see that my efforts are mostly invested well, such as my contributions to: Yusuf Abu al-Haggag, Alexis Mac Allister, Jack Grealish and Palestinian genocide accusation, for which I received a barnstar.”
During this, a further interaction between me and ChurCuz occurred which I believe elucidated my point on ChurCuz’s unsuitability to editing (footballing) articles. You can read it here. I then said to ToBeFree:
“I appreciate this. I’m not trying to sound annoying, but the other user has also done many of such things and has received no punishment, hence my calls of injustice/unfairness.”
ToBeFree later said:
“I personally think that the best arguments for unblocking are future contributions that are currently prevented by the block. Not others' behavior and not really past contributions unrelated to the block, although you can of course refer to them as a kind of proof that your proposed future edits will actually look as promised.”
My argument for unblocking was not the actions of the other user. The best part of my unblock summaries were intentions for the future and past contributions that prove I am willing to work constructively on Wikipedia. ToBeFree referenced my block in the past (fair enough), to which I replied: “the other user also has a block log and has ignored past warnings like you say I am, but the punishment they have received is somehow much less. I’m struggling to comprehend this”.
In fact, my main qualm was that an interaction ban would not stop ChurCuz from violating other pages. ToBeFree (who, in my opinion, ridiculed my concerns), in my eyes, had failed to deal with the very essence of the matter: ChurCuz’s actions. I warned people about ChurCuz, but little after the interaction ban their behaviour, which violated normal formats on footballing articles on Wikipedia despite my recent edit summaries on the page Darwin Núñez, continued in full force:
“Now, ChurCuz is back at it, making edits on Darwin Nunez which are clearly incorrect (now they know the one who was wishing to prevent them is unable to). I could not get through to them before and it seems nobody can; they do not stop disregarding usual formats.
Do you now see how this infuriates me that they are allowed to continue, despite having a host of evidence against them ( User talk:Doug Weller#ChurCuz)?”
I may have been being sensitive here, but I added:
“Finally, @ ToBeFree, you ridicule me in a way that is unfair: “the main concerns still appear to be summarizable as "I'm blocked, they are not, this is unfair".” ”
I wanted to explain my reasons for highlighting the behaviour. I said to ToBeFree:
“But how do you explain the disparity in the punishments? My reason for asking is because I want to see appropriate punishment given to the more aggressive user, ChurCuz (with whom I no longer interact), who will carry on unless this occurs. My reason for asking is not because I am whining.”
To these concerns ToBeFree came out with:
“Fine. Someone will notice, perhaps even me; someone will deal with it [ChurCuz’s behaviour]. Wikipedia has 46,946,034 users; it doesn't need your monitoring, while blocked, of a user who is interaction banned towards you. Focus on your block until you're unblocked, please.”
In this, I believe that it becomes more apparent that ToBeFree acted wrongly in that they failed to deal with the original problem despite their attention having been raised to it on numerous occasions (the whole point of their involvement in the first place was to deal appropriately with ChurCuz). Despite my only trying to help in the best way I could while I was blocked, ToBeFree replied snappishly and dismissed my concerns despite admitting their correctness.
Overall, I’m not quite sure where to go next and I thank you now if you got here as I appreciate the great volume of text. I clearly didn’t cover myself in glory with this, and I erred numerous times (for which I was punished). However, my main concern is still the unregulated behaviour of ChurCuz. Second, I am somewhat bemused by the resolution skills of ToBeFree, which seem vastly inferior to those of (e.g.) Hammersoft, SandyGeorgia and yourself. It is very hard and also not needed to punish an administrator, but I only request that their resolutions of disputes in the future be monitored.
Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, I want to show that my “behavioural issues will cease; I want to show I have learnt my lesson”. Hence my (second) unblock request:
“I’m well aware that I erred, and am willing to move forward from my mistakes. My edits merited a block owing to the fact that they violated WP:BLPRESTORE in that I added back content to articles after it had been reverted by other users. This was in good faith, yet it is clear to me now the mistakes I made. Moving forward, I will be more careful and use talk pages to discuss edits I disagree with more frequently, being sure to act with more civility. I will continue to edit pages such as Yusuf Abu al-Haggag, Alexis Mac Allister, Jack Grealish and Palestinian genocide accusation, which I have created/significantly contributed to/revamped.”
Thank you so much for reading; I would be grateful for your opinions.
Yours gratefully & sincerely,
— Scientelensia ( talk) 11:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Sources of quotations: User talk:Scientelensia#February 2024, User talk:Doug Weller#ChurCuz
References
Scientelensia, you have two prior topic bans (in GenSex and Palestine-Israel). Callanecc notified you of a 12-month topic ban in Gensex (expired in December 2023) in this discussion. Today, you returned to the exact same topic (actors who have defended Rowling) to derail a considerably productive discussion at Talk:J. K. Rowling with this long digression to content not covered in any scholarly source. I have stated elsewhere that your first topic ban may have been overly harsh, but I am now quite concerned that you don't yet seem to understand proper use of a talk page, or see that your post has disrupted what had been a very productive discussion thus far. I request that you put a hat (with the {{ cot}}/{{ cob}} templates) around that entire discussion; your point is made in the first sentence (actors who support her have been removed), and if you want those actors included, then please find a scholarly source that mentions them. Otherwise, it looks like another trip to WP:AE might be in order; you don't seem to have taken on board why your posts in 2022 were disruptive. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)