User talk:Old houses

User is currently blocked[edit]

List of the oldest buildings in Connecticut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Old houses. Please explain why you should not be blocked indefinitely for continuing the war about house dating that was originally reported at WP:AN3. You were blocked on 23 March for this same activity, but it still continues, as reported on my talk page. Your personal attack that was reported looks like a summary of all the grounds needed for a WP:NOTHERE block:

This "consensus" concept is irrelevant in this case, but maybe to avoid your vandalism, I should recruit more editors? Or create multiple logins? Is that cool? But really, your refusal to even read the cited source makes it clear you're an activist, not a serious user.

Here we have:

Incorrect charge of vandalism
Declaration that consensus is irrelevant, contrary to WP:CON
Proposal to recruit more editors (these terms refer to meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry).

If you will back away from these suggestions and promise to abide by consensus there may still be time for you to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, who are you?

I said consensus is irrelevant in this case because we were talking about which source is most reliable. I did not in any way say consensus is irrelevant.

Under what circumstances would I be allowed to edit that entry in the Oldest Buildings in Connecticut? How is that the other user can reverse my edits without penalty? Old houses (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, sorry, I don't care who you really are, I just want to know your official title here on wikipedia, who you answer to, etc. Old houses (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, honest question for you- are you saying consensus has more weight than verifiability and reliability? Wikipedia guidelines say be bold; age matters; seek expert sources, etc. If we use consensus primarily, then it's mob rule, denying the goal of finding the most reliable source.Old houses (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I would never engage in what you're calling meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry; I do suspect that for one of the users here, howeverOld houses (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per WP:NOTHERE. See discussion above. From your response I could not detect any promise of better behavior in the future. If you view Wikipedia's system as 'mob rule' then we are unlikely to be a good place for you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston,I'm not asking for an unblock at this time; I need to review wikipedia expectations and get a better handle on how to deal with difficult owner-inclined users, then I'll ask for an unblock. I clearly do not think wikipedia's system is mob rule and I've never even remotely indicated that's what I think wikipedia is all about. I believe the way to handle a user who is owning an article is to report them, and that's what I'll do in the future. Thank you. Old houses (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I have never "rejected consensus" or claimed wikipedia runs on mob rule. Totally false, never wrote anything like that.

Also, a user created a post below titled "Blocked, but editing under a different username" which was immediately rejected as total fabrication, an obvious attack on me intended to solidify the already questionable grounds for a block.Old houses (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I didn't revert three times in 24 hours, and while I think EdJohnston is incompetent, I do agree to abide by whatever they say above Old houses (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

sorry, I believe EdJohnston is saying consensus trumps reliable sources, and that is totally false; consensus has nothing to do with this case; I did not intend my word incompetent to be a personal attach, and I regret using that word. Also, I did not do three reverts in 24 hours. I agree to follow EdJohnston's rules, period Old houses (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your overall combative attitude not only makes me think you could start a fight with an empty room, it is enough to forestall any consideration of what you actually did in considering your request. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

well, weird response, admitting you didn't even look at the issue? If you have been instructed to arbitrarily judge on a hunch, so be it, but I think you should do your job and look at the case, then decline my request if you determine I have willfully abused the platform. We have a rogue user/owner Tomticker5 who's determined to own the page in question, who just today deleted one of my additions to the page.Old houses (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, could you please look at Tomticker5, they have deleted a properly cited entry on the list of oldest buildings in connecticut: Samuel Harris House; this is a clear case of vandalism. Thank youOld houses (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, I think I won't bother with an unblock request at this time; obviously I need to get a better idea of how wikipedia works, etc. I have asked administrators how to deal with a user engaged in owning and deleting content without comment, but I have received no input or advice. I follow the be bold, cite propertly, 'if something is unlikely to be true' then edit, etc. I need to get a better idea of how to handle difficult users, how to report them, etc., how to edit and not be accused of warring, etc. and when I get a handle on what administrators are looking for, I'll ask for the block to be lifted, thank youOld houses (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See that user's talk page. It's not vandalism, and you shouldn't automatically assume ill intent. They were simply mistaken.

ɱ

(talk) 19:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was the third time the user deleted that entry, this time not even mentioning it in the comments. If vandalism is the wrong term, I apologize. Given that user's history of reverting my edits and owning that site, it's not a mistake, in my humble opinion, but I do appreciate your addressing this issue. Thank youOld houses (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That user has not put that house back on the list; they own the article Old houses (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you assume ill intent. You constantly do this, and it's also against Wikipedia's core policies (its five pillars). The user said they would add it back; trust that they will. If they don't and won't, then you can talk and think about ill intent.

ɱ

(talk) 00:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm sure they will, now that they've been called out by someone else. All goodOld houses (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, their reply is their most recent edit. You can't assume they have nothing going on in the real world, allowing them to act right away. And even if they edit for a week afterwards, it's natural to assume they forgot. Humans forget, we're not perfect. Don't assume ill intent unless you see or have -irrefutable- evidence of it.

ɱ

(talk) 00:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, dealt with this user for a while now, but I'll certainly give them a chanceOld houses (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said I wouldn't do what you accuse. And you didn't even answer my questions at allOld houses (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

who supervises what you're doing? you're totally cherrypicking; you are implying consensus rules wikipedia, and that is totally ridiculous, completely false. who monitors how you handle this stuff? are you a hacker? I'm serious, who is watching you, how did you get to arbitrate this stuff?Old houses (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't do three reverts in 24 hours; that is a lieOld houses (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a clue: you didn't get blocked because of 3RR but because of your long history of editing and owning pages on here. – The Grid (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Grid, I've been citing that NRHP date and the other user is using a date from the 1930s and a date from a self-publish clickbait siteOld houses (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Old houses, in comments above you (wrongly) dismiss consensus ("sorry, I believe EdJohnston is saying consensus trumps reliable sources, and that is totally false; consensus has nothing to do with this case;" and "you are implying consensus rules wikipedia, and that is totally ridiculous, completely false."). Consensus is fundamental. You cannot edit in Wikipedia if you do not accept that. To change an article, if you have sources and are sure you are correct, then it is up to you to make reasonable arguments and to convince other editors what is the "truth" and what should be presented. No one person, yourself included, can declare yourself to be King of Wikipedia and make all decisions. There is a term "local consensus" sometimes applied to situations where just a few editors have come to a perhaps idiosyncratic/incorrect position which cannot easily be changed; if that happens there are approaches available to bring in broader editorial review. But whether you yourself deem the editors of the Connecticut old houses page to be incorrect, or not, you will not be allowed to battle your way to some kind of "win" for yourself. You have to convince others and change consensus. You might look at guidelines for editors having wp:COI and proceeding as if that applies to yourself, if/when you do return to editing, i.e. accepting limitations in order to get along better. I hope this comment is helpful to you. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One, I totally disagree with your interpretation of wikipedia guidelines. Two, I totally disagree with your unsubstantiated opinion that I dismissed consensus. I will restate my opinion- the article in question concerns dates of construction. The best source for a date of construction is what matters most. In my opinion, there are editors involved with the article in question who do not believe finding the best source is of paramount importance; rather, they believe consensus is more important than finding the best source, and for them, consensus means one other user besides themselves. What you're implying is that consensus is more important than finding the most reliable source. In my opinion, in this specific case, we have an activist who is attempting to own the site, who intentionally edits based on their world view, not on the most reliable source.

So, when you say "consensus is fundamental" you are very clearly saying consensus trumps the most reliable source, which is obviously against what wikipedia stands for.

Anyway, how do you define consensus when there are only two users involved?

Your interpretation of wikipedia guidelines is a real head-scratcher.Old houses (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Doncram you should look at the specific issue; there is a reliable source stating that the Buckinham House was built ca. 1725. The source is from an expert in Connecticut historic architecture. The other user involved insists much older sources are equally or more reliable. When the entire article hinges on date of construction of historic architecture, and there is a source from an expert on the subject, and there is no more recent reliable source, then that source should be used. Is that 1640 date "unlikely to be true" (to use a phrase from wikipedia editing guidelines)? Of course it's unlikely, for two excellent reasons, one subjective, one objective. First, subjectively speaking, the house has no 17th century features, which wouldn't be a reliable bit of information if undocumented. However, the second reason that 1640 date is unlikely is that an expert in the field of early Connecticut architecture has surveyed the house and written a report in which it is clearly stated the house is "ca. 1725."

The other user, the editor who I believe is owning the article, wants to ignore that source, instead preferring the 1640 date, in part because, according to them, the chimney of that house has "always had the date 1639" on it.

The most reliable source says "ca. 1725;" no problem mentioning previous dates ascribed to the house in the article on the house, but the date of construction, based on the most reliable source, is ca. 1725 Old houses (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Doncram, I find your approach to me here as harassing, bullying, overall just not productive. You're just cherrypicking random wikipedia guidelines and assuming things about my wikipedia experience that just are not based on reality. Old houses (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doncram, how about you look at the case of the Buckingham House, and you tell me which source should be used? The irony in this case is that the Buckingham House is one of the very few Connecticut houses that's been surveyed by an expert in the last fifty years. Yet the owner of the wikipedia article on the oldest buildings in Connecticut prefers traditional dates so that's what's thereOld houses (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Harris House moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Samuel Harris House, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about old houses tend to have filler content having nothing to do with the house itself. In other words, I don't think think there's enough known about the house to have its own article. Probably should be deleted? Anyway, thanks.Old houses (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit, then "restored" the draft to mainspace at Samuel Harris House (Middletown, Connecticut), then I redirected it to Middletown, Connecticut#Samuel Harris House. The article version before redirect is this. If/when there's substantial info available about it, that version could be restored and expanded, with edit history (from creation by Old Houses, on) in place. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, but editing under a different username[edit]

I suspect that User:RoiSTL is User:Old houses, editing under that name during and since conflict at the list of oldest houses in Connecticut page and subsequent blocking. See Special:Contributions/RoiSTL. No user page, not interacting with anyone else, note their focus. I will request socking investigation and rollback of all their edits. We don't need this. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, wait a minute. I have no idea who that account belongs to or what started this conflict. I don't know how or why I have been dragged into this dispute. I am a relatively new Wikipedia editor who joined this past December and it is true I don't have my owner user page as of now. I started editing thinking I could help with the historical knowledge of the United States, particularly of Missouri and Illinois. I wasn't expecting to be dragged into some dispute and potentially be punished for the actions of another user. If you need any information from me or anything at all don't hesitate to ask. RoiSTL (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per a check-user's evaluation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Old houses, it seems I was incorrect--they are entirely unrelated--and i want to apologize to User:RoiSTL. I will follow up, elsewhere. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

i will not engage in edit warring; please unblock 162.142.118.164 (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please log in to your account to make an appeal. Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

My login Old Houses has been disabled, possibly deleted by an administrator there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.142.118.164 (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as disabling logins (unless you are globally-locked, which is not the case).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info; now able to log inOld houses (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

after a break to read various guidelines and how to deal with rogue users, I pledge to not engage in edit warring Old houses (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As noted, this block is for more than just edit warring. You're going to need to convince us that your behavior will change going forward and tell what specifically you will do when confronted with an editing dispute. I too am concerned about your general combative attitude. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I get that. But I've clearly shown a change of attitude by accepting the ban on editing; reading up on wikipedia expectations; and respectfully asking for reinstatement. I have not in this request indicated in any way that I would be combative going forward. I have been a bold editor, which is how I understood the guidelines and expectations. Defending properly cited edits can be tricky when dealing with users committed to owning an article. I will definitely allow administrators to deal with these rogue users, rather than just edit. Please see note above from doncram accusing me of using a different login to continue editing, which is an obvious attempt to keep me from being reinstated, to make me look bad. That user was thankfully and immediately corrected. Anyway, thank youOld houses (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

when presented with an editing dispute, I will use the talk page to politely see where the other editor is coming from, and if they prove to be an owner or in some other way hostile, I'll submit the issue to an administrator. thank you Old houses (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You should read dispute resolution - admins don't always handle these kinds of disputes. PhilKnight (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I just read the dispute resolution, and it recommends exactly what I state I will do, which is politely engage the editor, etc. I have never "rejected consensus" as the original block claims; that is totally false. I have edited boldly and according to wikipedia guidelines. Edit warring is the gray area I've tread, and what I pledge now is to not resort to edit warring. I will engage with those editors who are in disagreement with my edits, and state my case in the talk section. Please let me know how I am misstating wikipedia expectations.Old houses (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I agree to abide by wikipedia guidelines and expectations. I have been a bold editor, but never knowingly in violation of wikipedia guidelines. I have now read all the guidelines and recommendations, and now understand how wikipedia works. My bold editing has clearly annoyed one specific user, and that user has acted aggressively to keep me blocked, I believe so they can continue to own that Oldest Buildings in Connecticut article. I will be a model user on wikipedia. Thank you Old houses (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your comments here, it would clearly be a mistake to unblock you. Yamla (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello, could you please explain? What comments are you referring to? I've in no way indicated an interest in deviating in any way from wikipedia guidelines. I will resort to Third Opinion if and when all other options have been used.Old houses (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"We need to block Old houses from editing the list of oldest buildings in Connecticut and articles on Connecticut houses. According to him/her/he/they/them/her/she every building in Connecticut was built either after 1730 or in the late 18th century. Help!!!01:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Tomticker5 (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)" Just one example that this user is specifically targeting me and recruiting others to their cause, completely mischaracterizing my actual activity on wikipedia; a clear violation of wikipedia guidelines: "Old houses (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Total lack of explanation for denial of my unblock request. I will follow all wikipedia guidelines for editing and civility. I have been the target of a couple of users, and I feel my block should be lifted, given my respectful behavior while blocked and my current and repeated pledge to respect wikipedia guidelines. Just one example of this users blatant disregard for wikipedia guidelines, which continued to the point where I was blocked for defending myself in a way which did (I admit) violate wikipedia expectations. I will not engage this user in the future and will use Third Opinion when necessary: "We need to block Old houses from editing the list of oldest buildings in Connecticut and articles on Connecticut houses. According to him/her/he/they/them/her/she every building in Connecticut was built either after 1730 or in the late 18th century. Help!!!01:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Tomticker5 (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)"Old houses (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request still mentions another user that you had a conflict with, indicating that you cannot drop the stick. Future requests should only address your behaviour, explain why it was wrong, and describe what you will do in the future to avoid this mistake again. I also suggest that you commit to not editing in the topic areas that caused this concern in the first place. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Well, you had a chance to look into the situation, and decided not to spend two minutes and see an obvious case of a rogue user recruiting to get me blocked. I very clearly stated my participation in edit warring and plainly stated I would not do it again. So I did exactly what you say I should have done. And as for 'dropping the stick,' I mention that user/owner simply to give a sense of the circumstances leading to the edit warring; I in no way suggested I haven't 'dropped the stick.' And you suggest I not edit in the topic area that "caused this concern" but fail to acknowledge that the edit warring was instigated by a user who 'owns' the article in question. I think a more appropriate response to my unblock request would be to just keep me blocked on the article in question.Old houses (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]