User talk:Augenblink

Welcome!
Hello, Augenblink, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

MigrationWatch UK
Please do not add or change content, as you did at MigrationWatch UK, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Falsely identifying edits as vandalism, edit warring
Wikipedia has a core policy of verifiability, which means that material must be verifiable to be included in an article. Broadly speaking, this is accomplished by providing citations to reliable sources. Material which is not verifiable, especially material that could be considered contentious (like calling an organization "astroturfing") can be removed by any editor. Such removals are not vandalism. Please do not refer to such removals as vandalism, please do not reinsert unverifiable material, and most especially do not do so repeatedly! Doing so is likely to lead to you being blocked from editing. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're misunderstanding the situation. I merely identified acts of vandalism and repaired appropriately.  Augenblink (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Continued, with block
I had protected the article in question when I left you that message, to prevent your disruption and give you a chance to both read and understand what I was saying to you, and to allow you to discuss the situation on the article's talk page and reach a consensus with your fellow editors. Instead of doing that, you simply waited out the 4-day protection period and immediately resumed disrupting the article. Therefore, Please be aware that any further disruption, especially but not limited to repeating this behavior when the block expires, will lead to an indefinite block from editing for refusing to contribute constructively to building an encyclopedia. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your block has been extended to 60 hours for block evasion. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's sad that you're abusing your administrative powers to aid this sort of repeated vandalism of this wikipedia page.  You ought to be ashamed of yourself. &mdash;Augenblink 10:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Removing unsourced material is not vandalism, as I'm sure that you are aware. If you are not aware, please have a read of WP:VERIFY. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense, of course. A source was provided, and then removed by you in an act of vandalism, and you have since then compounded that act of vandalism over and over. &mdash;Augenblink 12:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the source was a personal blog, which is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're merely attempting to rationalise your actions. The section of the article in question refers to "some commentators", and so a reference to a commentator is entirely appropriate (unless, of course, you're arguing that bloggers are not "commentators", which would be an impressively novel attempt at redefinition.) Of course, five minutes with google will reveal many other examples as well, eg:
 * http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-pirate-party-perspective-23478.html
 * https://wantonpiffle.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/ideological-churnalism/
 * http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?5111-Britain-Considering-Leaving-the-EU/page2
 * http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=191&topic_id=35204&mesg_id=35223
 * http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/uks-new-foreign-secretary-reiterates-earlier-stance-eu-membership-303601
 * http://www.thesleepingdogs.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12584
 * &mdash;Augenblink 16:22, 18 June 2015 (GMT)
 * Unfortunately I don't think Wikipedia considers the views of someone who makes an anonymous comment on an article, or posts on an online forum, notable enough to include in articles. See WP:BLOGS. A blogger is a commentator of sorts, of course, but the problem with self-publishing is that anyone can write anything online. That doesn't mean it's worthy of note in a Wikipedia article. I'm happy to ask for other opinions on the RS noticeboard if you want, though? Discussing this there or on the article talk page would have been a much better strategy than repeatedly reverting my edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh, so now you're asserting that a "commentator" is not a commentator? Again, certainly a creative attempt to rationalise your wrongdoing. Obviously, your repeated and explicit vandalism of the page will be repaired as often as necessary.  Augenblink (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm explaining that Wikipedia has rules about using material that is self-published. An anonymous commenter on a forum is not a "commentator", or at least not one worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Similarly, if someone posted a comment on a blog that pink is blue, we wouldn't then add a sentence to the pink article saying that "some commentators say that pink is, in fact, blue". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, no. That is a redefinition of Orwellian proportions coupled with one hell of a reductio ad absurdum.  The situation remains this:  You have been repeatedly vandalising the page by removing an objectively factual statement in, as the Wikipedia Vandalism definition puts it, "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."  This is contrary to the spirit and purpose of wikipedia, and you should stop.  As you apparently have no intention of stopping, it is up to others to continually repair that vandalism whenever possible.  Augenblink (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Augen, we use a specific definition of WP:Vandalism here on Wikipedia, and wrongly accusing others of vandalism is a form of personal attack, so please avoid doing that. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand by my assertion. Vandalism is Vandalism is Vandalism. &mdash;Augenblink 16:08, 18 June 2015 (GMT)

I apologize in advance for how long this is.

First of all, until just now I hadn't seen your assertion above that I have misbehaved as an administrator. If you believe I have blocked you in error, by all means use the unblock template as described in the block message above to request another administrator to come and review the block and your reasons for requesting it to be overturned. In direct response to that assertion, I will point out that on a personal level, I do not actually agree with the viewpoints of the organization this article is about (and in fact, find some of their stated views quite offensive). Your implication that I am supporting this article in contravention of Wikipedia policy is thus similarly offensive to me. As a Wikipedia editor, I strive to follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies on every article, equally, whether or not I agree with or like the articles' subjects. Similarly, as an administrator, I have access to tools sometimes necessary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia by editors who are not following those guidelines and policies, and I apply my expectations of others to follow them as fairly as possible, again regardless of the subject of the article or any personal traits of the editor(s) involved.

In this case, the Wikipedia policy is clear:

The verifiability of the statement "... characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing "astroturfing" pressure group" has been challenged. That means it needs a source. As per the policy, without a source, that material can be removed. Therefore, the removal is NOT vandalism, and will never be vandalism. To call it such is to deliberately mischaracterize the editing behavior of other users, and can be considered a personal attack.

Further, to re-insert the material, even before considering policies about edit warring etc., you must provide an inline citation that directly supports the concept that academics (as well as commentators) have called MigrationWatch a "right-wing astroturfing pressure group". If you cannot provide such a source, you cannot reinsert the material and still be in compliance with one of the most important editing policies of Wikipedia. (I will edit again in a few minutes to address the links you provided above as proposed sources.)

And yet, you continued to do so, over and over again, causing a disruption on the article. When I blocked you for doing so, you logged out and kept doing it anyway, disrupting the article again. When I extended your block, you complain that I am misusing my administrator tools. Please think carefully about how this would look to an uninvolved observer. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Rebuttal of sources
Here's my interpretation of the links you provided as sources above. I went ahead and numbered your links above (sorry for editing your comment) so it's easier to respond. Please keep in mind that evaluating the reliability of a source is necessary to satisfy verifiability policy. WP:SOURCES details the guidelines for reliability.

Also, remember that the clause that needs to be supported by sources is "characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing astroturfing pressure group". There's four components of that assertion which need support. If you can't prove that ALL FOUR of those components are verifiable, by citing applicable sources, then the sentence MUST be removed or rewritten, which is what was done. These are the components:


 * 1) Commentators have called MigrationWatch a right-wing group
 * 2) Commentators have called MigrationWatch an astroturfing group, or have accused them of astroturfing
 * 3) Academics have called MigrationWatch a right-wing group
 * 4) Academics have called MigrationWatch an astroturfing group, or have accused them of astroturfing

The Wiktionary entry for commentator specifically includes " someone who is paid to give his/her opinions in the media about current affairs, sports, etc." (emphasis mine). This means random people on the Internet do not count for supporting the assertion that "commentators" have said anything about anything. That rules out... all 6 links. All of them but number 2 are either forum posts or news article public comments from random Internet people. Number 2 is a Wordpress blog by some person who doesn't even have an "about me" page to explain their qualifications, so they also appear to be a random Internet person and still don't satisfy the definition of commentator.

This doesn't even touch components 3 and 4 referring to academics. Nothing you've said, posted, done, or linked to has in any way established an academic evaluation of MigrationWatch as having engaged in astroturfing. Therefore, it can and should be removed from the article when challenged, as it was. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I understand your need to try to assuage your guilt for abusing your power in abetting the aforementioned vandalism of this Wikipedia entry. I really do.  However, it is time to let it go, your position is simply untenable.  You are attempting to justify the distortion of objective facts.  Essentially, your position entirely rests on semantic revisionism.  Do the ethical gymnastics required to try to redefine as commonplace a term as "commentator" in order to aid that vandalism really not bother you?  If not, that seems very sad.  Augenblink (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very simple, Augenblink. If you want to add objective facts to the article, then you need to cite a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Which is exactly what I have done.  That is precisely what qualifies your actions as vandalism.  Augenblink (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not adding a source with your edits, and the sources you have suggested do not meet WP:RS. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. See above.  Augenblink (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You provided a range of sources, none of which both met WP:RS and supported your addition. I suggest that you look for a newspaper, book or academic article that supports the claim if you want to include it, otherwise you risk being blocked again. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You still seem confused. See above.  Augenblink (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Your recent editing history at MigrationWatch UK shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're talking about. I've merely been fixing repeated acts of vandalism to this wikipedia entry. (see above)  Augenblink (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have now made 4 reverts to this article in around 4 hours. I suggest you self revert. Keri (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that means. Are you urging me to vandalise the page? Because if so, I obviously decline.  Augenblink (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page MigrationWatch UK has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Keri (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, again, I really don't know what you're referring to. The only edits I've made to the MigrationWatch UK page in the past couple of months has been to repair vandalism to the page. Augenblink (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

 * You seem to be confused, I guess because you've come into the conversation late, but there was no "edit warring", there's just been vandalism that I've been repairing. Augenblink (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk page
I can see that you have a really chronic case of WP:IDHT but please, you need to understand that refactoring other people's messages is not allowed. You can, however, just remove them entirely from your own talk page. So please do that instead. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Apparently it makes you feel better to label it as something that clearly doesn't apply in this situation (re: repeated vandalism by a user that I repair as often as I can.)  You still seem like you're not really aware as to what's going on in this case.  Please read above for the backstory.  Augenblink (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I've been watching. The situation is that your edit at Migrationwatch is very obviously against current consensus and you think that you're entitled to use edit warring to keep the edit in if you call everyone else vandals. Obviously no one agrees with that but you just refuse to get the point, which has led to you being blocked indefinitely. You might get unblocked if you sincerely admit that you understand that edit warring in a content dispute is not justified. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough; I suppose I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you hadn't been following along at all, as opposed to having read the backlog and just not understood the situation. Duly Noted.  I'm not going to lose any sleep over the shameful actions of the various admins, etc, who are abetting that user's repeated vandalism of this wikipedia entry.  If your conscience doesn't bother you already, then I'm really pretty sure that nothing I can say or do will change that. *shrug*  I can't make you do the right thing, I can only continue to do the right thing myself by repairing vandalism whenever/however I am able to.  Augenblink (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Keri (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for your confusion. I only wish to have one active account.  Please delete this one, and any others that may get banned. Augenblink (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no confusion at all on our part. You are allowed one account and this is it.  You can not create new accounts nor edit without logging in to evade the block that has been placed on this account.  If you feel the block should be lifted you need to ask for it to be lifted on this account.  You should start by reading Guide to appealing blocks.  Then either use the  template on this page and explain why you feel you should be unblocked or you can request an unblock the the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Any new accounts or IPs will be blocked.  -- GB fan 10:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
— Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)