User talk:DCBarrow

Permanent snapshot of toxic editing environment on the Wikipedia Project
Link 1: In 2009, I made edits for the first time on Wikipedia. This consisted of adding material as Haruspex101 to the bio of a living person which was then attacked by an extremely biased ArbCom editor YellowMonkey. I was indefinitely blocked for what was said to be "making legal threats" when the editing record actually shows that I disclosed I had no legal standing and that I was pointing out, as a sensible editor should, that there were legal exposures arising from the material that had been posted about the subject of the bio page. I was further blocked from making edits to User_talk:Haruspex101, including making any unblock requests. In 2011, the ArbCom editor YellowMonkey faced a major Community Debate(link) as to that person's conduct as a privileged editor. After this, YellowMonkey never edited again under that username. Debate about YellowMonkey continued such as here.

Link 2: over 8 years later, I returned to edit under my real world name: DCBarrow. Given the long absence, and preferring not to stir up the past again, I considered it was best to do this afresh. I then experienced hounding and was indefinitely blocked, said to be on the grounds that the User_talk:Haruspex101 block of 9 years ago had not been removed.

I will make another application for unblocking with these observations. In doing so I am also documenting the Wikipedia editing environment, although I do not expect this will be of much interest to the internal world of the Project which has its own rules and norms, even if they are toxic.

I don't see the utility of writing more. DCBarrow (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

2 welcomes
Just a check - if you are writing about yourself - the WP:COI issue looms. Seek guidance if you are not sure where things start or end. JarrahTree 01:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I intend to stay in Talk concerning Article references to myself. Thought it might be interesting to chat with someone (me) "in the arena". If there are objections, I will just stop. I am not operating any other Wikipedia account. DCBarrow (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no personal objections, just a heads up in case someone tries to throw a policy or whatever at you. I encourage you to be positive and stay in there. JarrahTree 02:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Explaining improvements to EEng
Do you have questions why my edits to the article are improvements?

See also: LINK

And [|LINK] DCBarrow (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

EEng writes:
 * "The article has far too much WP:OR as it is. We don't "monitor" cases. Restrict yourself to WP:SECONDARY sources. EEng 12:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)"

Well, my edits on this article include no WP:OR. It is all from WP:PRIMARY. I can understand if this is not a topic area within your ability. As to your comment on "monitor", I was in the talk area and so talking about the future of the article.DCBarrow (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any Australian Constitutional Law expertise given you reversed this EDIT. I also note that you did not work it through the Talk page first, if you do not claim Australian Constitutional Law expertise. Consider the note which arises from the WP:PRIMARY: "Correction: Common Informers action may be commenced and then stayed until eligibility is determined, as in Alley v Gillespie." DCBarrow (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This should be easy to solve. Do you have any sources that analyse the High Court decision(s) that say what you are editing? Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * A conclusion is drawn in the article (without reference to a WP:Primary or WP:Secondary):


 * "The penalty provided for under the Common Informers Act may only thereafter be pursued once a finding on liability has been made."


 * WP:PRIMARY directly contradicts this at 69:


 * "The plaintiff's proceeding under the Common Informers Act should be stayed until the question whether the defendant is incapable of sitting is determined."


 * Therefore: "The penalty provided for under the Common Informers Act may only thereafter be pursued once a finding on liability has been made." should be deleted and the following is a good edit summary: "Correction: Common Informers action may be commenced and then stayed until eligibility is determined, as in Alley v Gillespie." DCBarrow (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wikiain there have been some incorrect edits by EEng at |&diff=850210579&oldid=850209350 Diff LINK. And I'm not surprised I'm blocked the way things seem to work on Wikipedia sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCBarrow (talk • contribs) 14:24, July 14, 2018 (UTC)


 * Let me make this even easier. A source other than the High Court itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked this account indefinitely as it is seemingly used for the single purpose of engaging in soapbox activities to promote content relating to yourself in a manner that is incompatible with our behavioral guideline as described in Conflict of interest. To appeal this decision, please follow the instructions at Guide to appealing blocks. Alex Shih (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Does that answer your question, DCBarrow? EEng 13:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I do not understand why you will not engage with me explaining why the content of the article has been improved. Although it may be that you do not understand Australian Constitutional law. Or something else is going on. DCBarrow (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Jpgordon your premises are (1) I made legal threats (which I deny) and (2) the 2009 user block which I disclosed is or should still be in force 9 years later. I've requested an ArbCom. Wikipedia has its internal tests. And the external community has its tests of what is to be made of the Wikipedia Project. So our tests are now running both ways. DCBarrow (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not surprising why people avoid attempting to edit Wikipedia pages. In my experience, Admins can be unpleasant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCBarrow (talk • contribs) 17:03, July 14, 2018 (UTC)


 * , to pick up our conversation (above) from before you were blocked, the problem lies not in my understanding of Australian law or whathaveyou, but rather in your understanding of how Wikipedia works and, to be honest, to some extent how the English language works. When I said "Restrict yourself to WP:SECONDARY sources" that means we use (in general) only secondary sources – not, as you seem to think, that we avoid secondary sources. We do not use, as you keep using, primary sources (as when you said "Well, my edits on this article include no WP:OR. It is all from WP:PRIMARY"). Working from primary sources is the very definition of WP:OR. I'm afraid editing Wikipedia appears to be not within your ability (to borrow a phrase I read somewhere). EEng 16:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * EEng I note WP:PSTS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The edit referenced in the conversation (above) concerns removing an edit which is not a WP:SECONDARY. In the circumstances, where as matter of logic the WP:PRIMARY contradicts it, the edit should be deleted until an authorative WP:SECONDARY on point can be sourced or indeed the very point is referenced in a WP:PRIMARY -- which I note it already is. I do feel I'm wasting my time on this Wikiepedia Project, with so much sass amd worse directed at me. DCBarrow (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're wasting your time because (a) you're here to promote yourself and your crusade, which is inconsistent with the purposes of Wikipedia; and (b) you really do seem to have trouble grasping the basic rules of sourcing and editing. Your latest post is unintelligible. EEng 17:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * EEng I will break it down for you, so perhaps you might grasp it. Firstly, what do you say is the source of this edit:
 * "The penalty provided for under the Common Informers Act may only thereafter be pursued once a finding on liability has been made."
 * Hint: it is a conclusion. And it's incorrect or at the very least it is not drawn from any WP:PSTS source.
 * Secondly, please read my previous edit again carefully. You might learn something.
 * I am feeling that I am wasting my time on this Wikipedia Project given the sort of arguments and people I am dealing with. DCBarrow (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Because of your obvious COI, OR, and use of primary sources, I returned the article to the state it was in before you arrived, with minor changes – no better and no worse than it was when all this started, but certainly better than with your self-promoting OR and so on. I've been trying to help you understand how much you still have to learn about how things are done around here, but it's not working. I think you'd better concentrate on your upcoming election and leave Wikipedia to disinterested editors. In any event, you're blocked and should be using this page only for making unblock requests. EEng 18:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hilarious outcome and hilarious result. Byeee! Timeshift (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't tease like that, Timeshift9, though I understand the impulse because this guy really was begging for it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 07:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ;) Timeshift (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I feel ripped off here. Others have been getting accused of personal attacks, while all I've been accused of is measly harassment! Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Personal attacks are cheap one-offs. Harassment takes time and determination. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)