|This user is aware of the discretionary sanction topic area(s):
Threads older than 90 days may be archived by .
Here are some links I thought useful:
- Wikipedia:Help desk
- M:Foundation issues
- Wikipedia:Policy Library
- Wikipedia:Cite your sources
- Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
- Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
- Wikipedia:Peer review
- Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
- Wikipedia:Village pump
- Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
- Wikipedia:IRC channel
- Wikipedia:Mailing lists
- Wikipedia:Current polls
Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
Outstanding contributions recognitionEdit
Yo Ho HoEdit
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#:Reopening_Closed_AE_Actions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
As You probably remember there is an IBAN in place and I feel that this IBAN is being either broken or strongly pushed against with so-called "improvements" upon my contributions, even the most recent that clearly are on top of history tab and clearly summarised.
I write this not to start any discussion nor to issue any blocks, short or long-term. All I want is a gentle reminder that a so-called "improvement" upon my contribution is still an IBAN violation as it was the case earlier. Maybe this reminder is due on both parties just to keep it clean. I do not mind and welcome it when a user improves upon my contributions but clearly not when that user has an IBAN for obvious reasons.
On my part I take extreme care not to overwrite other party's contributions and carefully check the history of common articles. I also focused more on writing new articles and received improved user rights for it. Once I did revert an edit to restore my contribution to it's original form as was intended by me, it's author (more below). If it was a violation I appologise for it. That being said I can say that I follow the community rules and wish others did also.
Here are some diffs
Special:Diff/914766061 (mine) 07:55, 9 September 2019
Special:Diff/914981744 14:28, 10 September 2019
This one may be seen as a genuine improvement
Special:Diff/921006053 (mine) 08:03, 13 October 2019
Special:Diff/927267954 10:38, 21 November 2019
But this is no improvement at all. It was the most recent contribution and clearly summarised as "100,00th" and I see no excuse for it.
Special:Diff/925947216 (mine) 09:00, 13 November 2019
Special:Diff/927766491 17:21, 24 November 2019
And persistently after I restored my contribution to it’s original form.
Special:Diff/927931242 18:28, 25 November 2019
I genuinely want to continue contributing to Wikipedia and can only hope this will not escalate further, it is not my intent, but I have to stand my ground. YBSOne (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- And just like clockwork so it continues...
- Special:Diff/605363095 (mine)
- YBSOne (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- And another
- Special:Diff/605617467 (mine)
- YBSOne (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I can tick the items, but the box for copying the diffs isn't being shown anymore. DBigXrayᗙ 13:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
VBS1/VBS2/VBS3/BISIM pages incidentEdit
thanks but what can be done about troll which flags / erases / changes pages pages have valid content, including sources citated, mismatching facts (e.g. he swapped two different companies etc.)
some year ago I spent time to find sources for citations to make sure it match with new wikipedia policies at that time
pages in question are VBS1 , VBS2 , VBS3 and Bohemia Interactive Simulations the same person when he dislike the reverts he simple flags the pages for different type of deletion (please note he got already several times denied on speedy deletion at 3 of 4 those pages etc.)
Hi GoldenRing - I am the subject of a one-way IBAN with another editor, which you previously provided some guidance regarding on my Talk page . As it was explained to me elsewhere, this IBAN is so total that I am precluded from identifying them by username, editing a page they have previously edited, editing a page they could edit in the future prior to them actually editing it, editing a page I have reason to know they might read, or participating in a conversation on a page in which a third editor subsequently pings them. This has essentially almost totally precluded my participation in Wikipedia. However, nine months ago this editor was indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Still, because WP accounts can't be deleted it is possible they might read a page I edit in which case I would be in violation of my IBAN, as I understand it, so out of a preponderance of caution I have continued to significantly restrict my editing to irregular and gnomish edits on low-traffic articles I believe they are least likely to read. In any case, I wanted to inquire of you if a block, after a certain period of time has elapsed, would relieve from me the terms of an IBAN (or at least until the second party were unblocked)? DocumentError (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding User:Alex Shih has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion last year to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Alex Shih requested it within one year. Because Alex Shih has not requested the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih#Motion to Suspend.