User talk:AtFirstLight

Introduction to contentious topics
— Nythar  (💬-🍀) 07:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Partial block
You have been blocked from the article Junkyard tornado for a month for persistent tendentious and aggressive pro-fringe editing. Note that you can still edit the article's talkpage (as well as all the rest of Wikipedia), although I will recommend you to avoid attacks such as linking to WP:JERK, or you may be in more trouble.

I see on the talkpage that you're under the mistaken impression that it would be appropriate to "request arbitration" about this kind of thing. No, the arbitration committee consists of volunteers just like you and me, and it's not possible for them to take on every disagreement, especially not concerning things they have already made a determination about. See Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Though of course you are free to try. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC).
 * An Arbitration Committee workshop from 2006 is not the place to enquire about an active block applied in 2023. You can ask the blocking administrator about the reasons for the block here, or on their talk page. Girth Summit  (blether)  08:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The blocking administrator is the person who signed the post saying that you were blocked. Their username is . I personally think that they have explained very clearly why you are blocked already, but if you really want clarification, it is their talk page you need to go to. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Girth Summit. AtFirstLight, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that you can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing  on this page. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC).
 * Thanks, waiting to hear back from User:Bishonen for the reason so I can petition it. AtFirstLight (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, AtFirstLight. You have addressed me on my page, but since you're also talking here, we might as well keep it here. I don't understand the bit about my boilerplate. (Or Wikipedia's boilerplate?) Are you referring to the Contentious Topics alert that Nythar gave you just before I blocked you, in the section above? That's actually not connected with my block. Nythar posted it while I was thinking about blocking you, reading your contributions, and writing up an explanatory (as I thought) note about the block for your page. I haven't blocked you per any special admin powers adhering to contentious topics, but merely given you a standard block for, as I said, persistent tendentious and aggressive pro-fringe editing. I'm sorry I misled you into thinking the workshop of the old pseudoscience arbitration case was the place to discuss your block. I mentioned the arbcase in my post above merely to illustrate the fact that ArbCom has already dealt with pseudoscience and fringe science, and are therefore unlikely to accept a case about the disagreement between you and . The interesting part of the case for you is the front page — the page I linked to — its second half, called Final decision. You can read that to see the committee's findings about how to handle pseudoscience on Wikipedia. Also, did you follow the links I gave you for "tendentious and aggressive pro-fringe editing"? They were meant to be explanatory, too. I'm not sure what more I can say. As I said, if you want to appeal the block to an uninvolved admin, you should use the template . Copy it just as it appears here on the page, curly brackets and all,  replace "your reason here" with the actual reasons you think you should be unblocked, and post it below. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC).
 * Thanks for getting back to me, it was a bit confusing there!
 * I understand the words tendentious and aggressive, but am at a loss as to why you feel these apply to my edits. Without knowing what I have done wrong, I'm not able to appeal. I hope you appreciate my situation. AtFirstLight (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You understand the words tendentious and aggressive? I've been trying to tell you that the words are links. They lead to policies/guidelines, and I'm offering you these links for a reason. Come on, click on them already. When you see a link, don't assume it's just something to explain what the words mean. While I appreciate that you're new (not so much time-wise, but in number of edits), it's rather heavy going for me to have to say things so many times. Please work with me, before I tire of coming back to this page. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC).
 * It's not just about understanding the words, it's about reading what those pages say and doing some thinking about how they apply to the edits you were making. I'm here because I too was considering partially blocking you from the page; I can't speak for Bishonen, but what I observed was that you made multiple personal attacks in edit summaries (which is prohibited by policy), and that you were edit warring rather then discussing changes on the talk page. I'd advise you to get some experience editing in non-contentious areas, and learn the ropes about editing collaboratively, before dipping your toe into subject areas like this. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You've lost me at the multiple personal attacks in edit summaries. Can you reference this please? AtFirstLight (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read through that policy? I mean, actually read it, not just glanced at it, or assumed that you can predict what it says? Girth Summit  (blether)  11:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have.
 * My edit summaries are:
 * Honestly at a loss here. AtFirstLight (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my memory was at fault there - there was only one personal attack in an edit summary, which was here. The other PA I observed was in an actual talk page post, here. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In the first instance, this is an anonymous user who was acting in bad faith by reverting edits without making a comment giving context for it.
 * In the second, I'm citing a wikipedia policy. I made it clear to the user he was making me feel uncomfortable and when he persisted in being hostile I stepped out of the argument and requested arbitration. AtFirstLight (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They were making me uncomfortable, *they were persisting in being hostile. Apologises.
 * AtFirstLight (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * AtFirstLight (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You think WP:JERK is "Wikipedia policy", that you can "cite" as such? Did you look at it? It's not even a Wikipedia page. Just a soft redirect to a Meta-Wiki page. Really. Is it any use offering you a link to Policy (compare my post above about offering you links that you obviously don't follow), where you can read what a policy is, and how Wikipedia policies are created, which is a complex and lengthy process? It's not just a matter of one person writing a page reflecting their own opinion, as "Don't be a jerk" on Meta is. If you're telling us you didn't realize it's offensive to link to it, as aimed at a particular individual, then I'm sorry, I don't believe you. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC).


 * I'm afraid I don't follow you.
 * Looking over the user in question's edit history he's used the pejorative "crackpot" twice without any repercussions. The user was transgressing polite online behaviour, I pointed this out. AtFirstLight (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Want to add the distinction between meta-wiki and wiki is quite flimsy, at least from my perspective. I appreciate you have many years of experience though. AtFirstLight (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also - sorry to be pedantic here, but you're quoting me as using the word "cite" - I never did! AtFirstLight (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Erm, yes you did, about four inches above this post (In the second, I'm citing a wikipedia policy.) Now, if you can wait a couple of minutes, I'm trying to post something more substantive, but keep getting edit conflicts. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * sorry, you're quite right. I searched "cite" and it didn't pick up "citi" - we can let that slide though. AtFirstLight (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, first off: accusing someone of editing in bad faith is a personal attack, unless it is done with evidence. You have repeated your personal attack above: yes, the IP editor should have used an explanatory edit summary, but the fact that they did not do so is no kind of evidence of bad faith editing. You should assume good faith, unless there is clearcut evidence that someone is acting in bad faith. Reverting your edits is evidence that they disagree with you, nothing more.
 * Now, regarding WP:JERK, it is a link to an essay, not a policy, and it's hosted on a different project: it really doesn't have any relevance on enwiki. Regardless, the way that you used it was inappropriate. I don't believe that I have ever given anyone a link to WP:JERK, for the very reason that it could be considered uncivil, but if I were ever to do so, I would be very careful about how I phrased it: something like 'Look, I'm not accusing you of being a jerk, but this particular action that you took seems to me to go against the guidance at WP:JERK.' You just gave a bare link, which looked for all the world like you were calling them a jerk. Not cool.
 * Here's the long and short of it: you waded into a page about a contentious topic without spending time to understand how this project works. You have insulted people, you have edit warred, and I see that you also followed one of the people you were in dispute with to another page to revert their edits over there. This is not the kind of collegiate behaviour we expect from contributors, and I am not surprised that it has led to a block - indeed, the fact that it is time-limited, and covers just one page, is probably quite lenient. Don't continue in the same vein, or it will likely be extended and broadened.
 * Finally, I have not seen the particular uses of the word 'crackpot' that you are referring to. I can imagine ways that word could be used in a personal attack, and I can imagine ways in which it could be used to criticise an argument or idea, which would not be a personal attack. With diffs, I can't comment. Even if they did use it inappropriately however, another person's failings would not justify your own. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your considered reply. The user seems to be an experienced Wikipedian, they were using the same format of linking to policies and I believed I was acting appropriately when I used the WP: format.
 * The IP user... I believe they WERE acting in bad faith. I'd almost go so far as to accuse the user of sock-puppetry considering the changes and timeframe.
 * Here are the user's offensive edit messages:
 * Thanks for taking the time with this. AtFirstLight (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should add, I take what you say about the 'WP:JERK' thing on board. I genuinely thought it was an established policy. AtFirstLight (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If I continue as a wikipedia editor, which I'd like to, how I can be in better contact with you. What channel were these concerns raised in? AtFirstLight (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You have zero grounds for thinking that IP editor was doing anything other than disagreeing with you. If you continue to make comments like that, your time here will be short.
 * Regarding the crackpot comments, in neither of these instances is the word being applied to the person making the edits - they're about the ideas of people being mentioned in the article. I don't think it's ideal, and it's not a word I would use myself without some very careful phrasing, but neither of those is a personal attack against another editor. Can I also say that you seem to be paying an excessive amount of attention to that specific editor's contibutions? To find that second diff you must have had to read through hundreds of their recent contributions. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia, and thousands of active contributors.
 * In response to your last comment, my attention was drawn by the thread at FRINGEN, that you yourself were involved in. You can contact me on my talk page.
 * My advice to you remains that you should find some different, uncontentious subjects to get involved with while you figure out how this place works. Best wishes Girth Summit  (blether)  12:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Like most editors, it's interesting to edit the subject area that is personally interesting.
 * The user's edits are immediately visible on their contribution page.
 * The IP edit I reverted with the "bad faith" message was the same as the user attempted to make previously.
 * IP edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Junkyard_tornado&diff=1153215576&oldid=1153195563
 * User edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Junkyard_tornado&oldid=1153159364
 * While I appreciate your help so far, if you feel this is a deadlocked I'd be happy to talk to someone else about this since I don't feel satisfied.
 * That said, I'm going out for a few hours so perhaps we can have a cooling off period and return to this. AtFirstLight (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, it's normal to suspect someone of editing in bad faith - that's a common situation to find yourself in. However, you should not voice those concerns unless you feel that you have persuasive evidence that would convince other editors. Even then, do not make the accusation in an edit summary - you need to make a report at a proper venue, with your evidence. In this case, it appears that you believe that the IP editor is in fact Hob Gadling, editing while logged out in order to evade scrutiny. The proper place to report that is at WP:SPI. I am one of the more active administrators at that venue, but you are welcome to make a report there, citing your evidence, and I will leave it to someone else to review.
 * Now, you have said that you are unsatisfied - fair enough. Bishonen, who imposed this block, has given you guidance on how to appeal the block; if you make an appeal, an uninvolved administrator will review it. They will note that I have endorsed the block, but they will make their own determination about whether or not it should remain in place. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  13:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the SPI filed by AFL as retaliatory. If you hadn't advised the user to file the report, I would have blocked them for the filing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what this means.. Can you explain it please? AtFirstLight (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , perhaps it was rash of me to advise them to file it. I guess I wanted to give them a fair crack of the whip in reporting their concerns, rather than give the impression of trying to put my foot on their neck, but maybe I should have explained why it was a bad idea.
 * AtFirstLight, what it means is that the report was entirely without merit, and it looks like you were doing it to get back at Hob Gadling because they disagreed with you. I'm not saying that is why you were motivated to file the report, I'm saying that that's what it might look like to an independent observer. I've checked through that IP's contributions (all six of them), and this was the only case of them reinstating edits that Hob Gadling had made, or even editing a page that HG was involved at. I widened the search out to their /24 range (so, all the IP addresses starting with ‎50.214.130), and still found no interactions. When I widened it out to the /16 range (all the addresses starting with ‎‎50.214), I found an instance of HG reverting edits made by anonymous editors on the range, but none of people from that range supporting him. I'll also note that HG gets involved in lots of talk page discussions and content disputes; if he were in the habit of logging out and editing from an IP to support his position, he would have been discovered and blocked years ago. In short: either this was a singular behavioural aberration from a long-standing contributor, or the IP address was not HG. Where there is doubt (and in this case, very significant doubt and only very weak circumstantial evidence), we assume good faith.
 * Now, your accusations of loutsocking have been reviewed by a third administrator, and your unblock request has been declined by a fourth administrator. For one last time, I will repeat my advice to you: go and find something else to do while you learn the ropes here. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. AtFirstLight (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and taking your time with this. AtFirstLight (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and taking your time with this. AtFirstLight (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)