Katfactz
Welcome! edit
|
Katfactz, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Katfactz! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC) |
August 2019 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Braxton C. Womacktalk to me! 16:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
September 2019 edit
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.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You are making controversial changes and being reverted. It is time to open a discussion and talk. Jorm (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Your recent contributions at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jorm (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Third opinion edit
The dispute you listed at WP:3O has been removed because the discussion involves more than two editors. For more information, please see the instructions at the top of the page. I would suggest that you choose a different dispute resolution process such as WP:DRN or opening an RfC if further discussion does not reach a consensus. These processes are designed to handle disputes involving multiple people. Thanks, --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
What you aren't getting edit
You are right that the link is bad, but we have ways to retrieve it through archival records via the Wayback machine. The fact is that you are now edit warring which is disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Katfacts, you posted that warning in the wrong place. There is no need to notify Jorm: they are well aware of 3R. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Knowledgekid, in principle you are right, but I wonder if there is any surplus value to it. It's odd, though, since the NYT cited them not so long ago. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I added an archived source for now then, the site could just be down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- In principle he's not right - it's an invalid source that no longer exists. Further, why in the world should we care about a now defunct website's opinion on the matter? What were their credentials? How are they relevant especially since they're now offline? And why is this conversation on my page and not the talk page of the article?
- The source does still exist as it has been archived and still retains notability. The quality of the source is open for debate on the article's talk-page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- The source does not exist, as it was an ongoing list used as a reference to determine if new shootings could be added and maintained on the page. It is no longer available for a reference and their opinion matters just as much as any other random webpage on the internet. Unless you'd like to go add a good 1,000+ sources, I suggest you stop this ridiculous exercise.Katfactz (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
October 2019 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Katfactz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is ridiculous. I removed an invalid source and was ganged up on by two people who tried to undo the edit without any reasoning.Katfactz (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Being correct in your edits, or being "ganged up on"(if true) is not a defense to edit warring. To be unblocked early you will need to describe how to handle editing disputes without resorting to edit warring. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2019 (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.
- Someone else will review this of course, but when other editors tried to point out to you that the source was still available through an archived copy ([1]), you continued removing the content anyway ([2]). That's why you're blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course I did. He removed other undisputed edits, posted on my personal talk page, brought my name up on some other user's talk page obviously in an effort to help remove my edits, and his reasoning was 'I can access an archive'? The source is no longer a real source - the now defunct webpage was a partisan, biased source to begin with. Furthermore, since the page was being used as a reference to see if two or more sources agreed on a definition for a particular event, it being inaccessible defeats its original purpose.Katfactz (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Being "right" is not an excuse for edit warring. When your block expires in (a bit less than) 24 hours you can feel free to discuss this matter on the article's talk page, as you should have in the first place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Katfactz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I posted a dispute. Multiple, and they weren't resolved. I made simple edits here that were fact-based, and another edit that, while fact based, was disputed. Two users ganged up on me and reversed my edits - I'm supposed to just let them, even though I'm right? How does that make sense? This is bullshit. Wikipedia is simply engaging in politics, and I will be reaching out to media sources about this. How sad it is that our community can't be trusted. Katfactz (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:53, 28 October 2019 (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.
Funny enough, neither of those guys received blocks, did they? Guess we know whose side you guys are on in the 'war'.Katfactz (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is no 'war'. But please, continue to hold your battleground positions. Escalate them, even!--Jorm (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Devoid of logic as usual, Brandon here says there’s no war, so this ban on edit warring is imaginary and my ban is ....?
If Wikipedia has a truthful outcome, won’t win this Brandon. Facts and reason are on my side. Katfactz (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Lol and? Are you going to take my free speech away even more? Please no! Douche. Katfactz (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- With the additional threats and repeated attempted WP:OUTING, this block is now indefinite and talk page access has been revoked. If you want to appeal please see WP:UTRS. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: I'm about to decline their UTRS appeal for other reasons, but for the record, it can't possibly be outing to call someone by the the name have posted very publicly on their userpage. The outing policy is quite clear on this, if the connection has been made on-wiki by the user themselves there is no outing. Block should possibly be corrected to reflect this as outing is a serious allegation and provably did not happen here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've declined their second unblock request at UTRS for other reasons but I would agree with Beeblebrox that outing has not happened and the block should possibly be corrected to reflect that, possibly amend the block log.-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate the clarification, and maybe not outing per the policy, but it's clearly an attempt to use an editor's personal information against them. Call it harassment, then, or just serious incivility, or whatever you want. Anyway, I won't be amending the block log. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yikes. This appears to be a pretty obvious attempt to block someone first and find a reason after. Everyone agrees the user did not out somebody, yet you've blocked the user anyway? Maybe I missed the threats but there do not appear to be any. This certainly seems like censorship of a particular view from the outside. It seems as though the points were made and the user was factually accurate and the ones who engaged in the war seem to be the other two users who traded "undo" edits while harassing and egging on the editor. They were silent on the talk page and did not dispute the points being made, but rather just "undid" the edits repeatedly without rationale. So from where I sit a user looked to make an accurate edit, two people disliked the edit because 'politics', they started an edit war and then called in their friends who banned the user permanently for defending a valid edit, while the two who started the edit war got off without any warning or punishment.
- I appreciate the clarification, and maybe not outing per the policy, but it's clearly an attempt to use an editor's personal information against them. Call it harassment, then, or just serious incivility, or whatever you want. Anyway, I won't be amending the block log. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've declined their second unblock request at UTRS for other reasons but I would agree with Beeblebrox that outing has not happened and the block should possibly be corrected to reflect that, possibly amend the block log.-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: I'm about to decline their UTRS appeal for other reasons, but for the record, it can't possibly be outing to call someone by the the name have posted very publicly on their userpage. The outing policy is quite clear on this, if the connection has been made on-wiki by the user themselves there is no outing. Block should possibly be corrected to reflect this as outing is a serious allegation and provably did not happen here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- With the additional threats and repeated attempted WP:OUTING, this block is now indefinite and talk page access has been revoked. If you want to appeal please see WP:UTRS. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Is permanently blocking somebody for their first edit war a common practice, or does this have more to do with politics? It seems the user only had a 24 hour ban until Ivanvector accused them of outing somebody, which everyone agrees did not happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.218.115 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Katfactz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #27350 was submitted on Oct 28, 2019 19:11:49. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Katfactz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #27353 was submitted on Oct 28, 2019 21:10:30. This review is now closed.
Notice of noticeboard discussion edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Requesting block review: Katfactz". Thank you. I've put this block up for community review, and I'm about to restore your talk page access so that if you would like to comment on the review somebody will copy your comments over to the discussion. You are expected to contribute civilly, otherwise your talk page access may be removed again. Note that I will likely be offline for about the next 10-12 hours. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)