Eganist
Joined 6 June 2011
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Eganist in topic Vandalism and outing
Welcome
Hi Eganist! welcome to Wikipedia!
Be bold in editing pages and don't let others scare you off! To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp.
|
Here are some links that you might find useful:
|
You can contribute in many ways
|
I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. If you need help, you can drop a note on my talk page or use Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. You can also type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia! utcursch | talk 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism and outing edit
You may wish to read WP:VANDALISM before accusing other users again. Also, WP:OUTING. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I did in fact read WP:VANDALISM prior to leveling the charge, and WP:OUTING does not apply when referencing a justification for reversing an edit on a WP:CONFLICT charge based on publicly available information. Otherwise, how else can the conflict of interest be proven? In any case, googling a username without actually providing the name is perfectly valid (hence why it's considered OSINT). That said, perhaps leveling the charge was hasty. Thanks, though. Eganist (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- The edits you reverted were not vandalism. Posting information about an editor gained from outside sources (like Google) where the editor has not previously posted that information on-wiki is outing and grounds for immediate blocking. Your understanding of Wikipedia policy is flawed, which is understandable given your limited editing history. I highly suggest you re-read the two links above more carefully this time and listen to other users who are trying to help you. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Perhaps a less apprehensive tone from you would help, but I understand the application of the Outing policy now. As for these edits, what would they qualify as? Eganist (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful reading tone in online discussions. On that note, is "apprehensive" really the word you wanted? As for what the edits, see WP:AGF. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I went with the assumption that good faith was not present given the content of the edits, but it's a good point to assume good faith regardless on the first round of edits. As for "apprehensive," I was aiming to use a word along the lines of tense or (what I perceived to be potentially) hostile as that's the impression I got from your choice of words, but you're right, tense/anxious is maybe the fourth or fifth definition of the word; the word is typically used in the context of expressing fear. In any case, thanks for the guidance. Eganist (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Re-read the vandalism page. Seems that misinformation doesn't qualify as vandalism unless there's evidence that the misinformation is repeatedly being added in spite of being edited out. Is my understanding correct? Eganist (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- The original message was "potentially hostile" because I believe you did violate our WP:OUTING policy, albeit unintentionally and in trying to improve the encyclopedia. For that I apologize. I was worried that a less-than-tolerant admin might see it and opt to push the block button instead of sending you a note about it. Our rules on vandalism are a little odd and require great care before labeling an edit as vandalism. Thanks for being so responsive and I hope you stay around and help improve the encyclopedia even more! Cheers. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I understand. This interaction was productive, and so I thank you for your patience and understanding. I look forward to contributing more to Wikipedia as time goes on. Your help in improving my comprehension of Wikipedia's editing policies has also proven invaluable. Cheers. :) Eganist (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The original message was "potentially hostile" because I believe you did violate our WP:OUTING policy, albeit unintentionally and in trying to improve the encyclopedia. For that I apologize. I was worried that a less-than-tolerant admin might see it and opt to push the block button instead of sending you a note about it. Our rules on vandalism are a little odd and require great care before labeling an edit as vandalism. Thanks for being so responsive and I hope you stay around and help improve the encyclopedia even more! Cheers. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful reading tone in online discussions. On that note, is "apprehensive" really the word you wanted? As for what the edits, see WP:AGF. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Perhaps a less apprehensive tone from you would help, but I understand the application of the Outing policy now. As for these edits, what would they qualify as? Eganist (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- The edits you reverted were not vandalism. Posting information about an editor gained from outside sources (like Google) where the editor has not previously posted that information on-wiki is outing and grounds for immediate blocking. Your understanding of Wikipedia policy is flawed, which is understandable given your limited editing history. I highly suggest you re-read the two links above more carefully this time and listen to other users who are trying to help you. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)