User talk:ExplodingCabbage

June 2024
Hello, I'm FlightTime. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. ''

Daily mail is NOT a reliable source'' - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Come on, mate. I've spelt out in excruciating detail on that article's Talk page (which I directed readers to in the summary of the edit you reverted) both:
 * that the article currently includes claims that are sourced from the Daily Mail and not from any other currently cited source, and therefore we cannot simply remove the citations without also removing the claims or else we will leave them uncited, and
 * that the claims in question ARE republished in non-deprecated sources, but that I think it's inappropriate to cite those sources over the DM in this particular case because their articles are all just plagiarism (in the form of either outright copy-and-paste or else paragraph-by-paragraph close paraphrasing) of the original reporting from the DM, and
 * that other sources (besides the plagiarists) corroborate much of the DM's reporting in these particular two articles and thus lend them credibility above the baseline for the DM, and
 * that we therefore face a trilemma: either 1. remove the claims, 2. cite the Daily Mail, or 3. launder a citation to the Daily Mail by citing one of the non-deprecated sources that plagiarised the Daily Mail's article
 * If you're not going to suggest which fork of that trilemma we should pick, what's the point in touching the issue at all? Ripping out the citation without any further changes just puts the article into an unambiguously unacceptable state where we are repeating claims from the Daily Mail without any supporting citation at all; that obviously needs reverting, and doesn't move us any closer to a final resolution. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well maybe you don't realize, we have rule and guidelines here. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And those "rules and guidelines" say we should source information from the Daily Mail but pretend we're not doing so, do they? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The short answer is: stop adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia. No, you haven't come up with another clever hack to put DM links as references into Wikipedia. No, you can't use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a talk page or arguing against multiple editors on multiple personal talk pages.
 * The deprecation of the DM was passed in a broad general RFC, ratified in a second broad general RFC and broadened even further in a third general RFC (the one that found that the DM are such inveterate liars that dailymail.co.uk cannot be trusted as a source for the content of the Daily Mail). You know this already.
 * If you really want to use DM links as references in the way you are, the place to make your pitch is the place where general RFCs on sourcing are held - that's WP:RSN.
 * If you are serious in your proposal, take it to WP:RSN. If you aren't serious, keep doing what you're doing - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's continue this particular line of discussion in the duplicate thread at User talk:David Gerard. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you assume ownership of articles, as you did at List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I haven't assumed ownership of anything.
 * Literally the only thing I have done in that article that has involved overriding any other editors' wishes is revert removals of a Daily Mail citation while information sourced from the Daily Mail remained in the article with no other supporting citation. In each case, I explained why I had done it, spelt out precisely what content was currently sourced from the Daily Mail, pointed the editors to a discussion I'd started about what to do about those particular citations, and made clear, explicitly, that I would not object to the editors removing the citations so long as they also removed the content that was sourced from those Daily Mail articles. My beef with the removals - as I've spelt out every time - was that they falsified the references list by removing a source the article still in fact used. Whatever the merits of making or reverting edits that remove citations of sources an article's content still depends on - and there's an ongoing discussion of that on David's Talk page that I may yet bring to a noticeboard for an outside opinion - it's still the case that the matter could've been resolved instantly if you or David had simply agreed the information sourced from the Daily Mail should be removed and asked me to go ahead and remove it.
 * Instead we're now in a situation where, for reasons unclear to me and that you have not articulated anywhere, you have reverted us to a version where we're sourcing information from the Daily Mail, despite now-unanimous consensus from three users involved in the discussion on the article's Talk page to rip out anything for which the Mail is the only source, and despite David also agreeing on his Talk page that this should happen.
 * I suggest you look at your own behaviour. You have undone edits of mine that implemented other users' unopposed suggestions from the Talk page without offering any real explanation of why, while SHOUTING AT ME IN ALL CAPS (and personally insulting me) in your edit summary, and have sneered at my attempts to discuss and contribute on the grounds of me being a new user with few contributions. I don't think I'm the one exhibiting "ownership" behaviour, here. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Drop the fucking stick, or get blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether, your choice! -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've harassed anyone, nor do I think I'm continuing a debate beyond its natural end. I certainly haven't harassed anyone "purposefully". For that matter, I don't know who specifically you're suggesting I've harassed (obviously either you, David, or both, but I don't know which) nor what specific debate you're referring to (though obviously it relates to either the fatal dog attacks page or the discussion on David's talk page).
 * If you want posting this here to be in any way productive, I suggest spelling out what specific actions of mine you find objectionable and why.
 * And, again, I suggest you look at your own behaviour. You have repeatedly treated me with rudeness and hostility and taken actions targeted at me that I find it difficult to see any justification for. At this point it is probably worth listing them. You:
 * in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&direction=next&oldid=1230288420 SHOUTED AT ME in all caps while declining to participate in the ongoing Talk page discussion about the citation you were removing.
 * when I tried to resolve my dispute with David (and later you) on David's Talk page:
 * removed my entire post (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&oldid=1230301302)
 * stated falsely in the edit summary that you had explained on my Talk page why you had done that (you hadn't, and never did)
 * after I restored the deleted post, voiced your contempt for me on the basis of my being a new user with few edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&oldid=1230386720)
 * in response to me explaining the circumstances around the Daily Mail citation and seeking input, you simply replied that "we have rule and guidelines here", without offering any constructive suggestion on how you felt the situation should be resolved, nor citing any such rules and guidelines responsive to my argument that using the Daily Mail as an undisclosed source is surely worse than using it with an explicit citation
 * reverted edits of mine on what you could have seen with a few minutes of scrutiny were unambiguously false grounds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FlightTime#Reverted_edits_to_List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom), even though by doing so you reintroduced reliance on the Daily Mail as a source (which was ostensibly what you objected to in the first place!)
 * called me a "DISRUPTIVE USER", again in SHOUTING CASE, in the edit summary
 * falsely marked that edit as a "minor edit", reducing the chance that others watching the page would review it and weigh on the dispute
 * swore at me here on my Talk page
 * posted a slew of (IMO false) accusations on this page - that I have assumed ownership of articles, harassed other users, and failed to "drop the stick" after an argument had run its course - all without pointing to the actions that you think constitute any of these things or explaining your position
 * threatened that I will be blocked from editing Wikipedia
 * accused me of edit warring and demanded I stop making edits without achieving consensus, even though my edits have been implementing already-achieved consensus from discussions in the article's Talk page which you have repeatedly declined to participate in
 * All of this is unpleasant and unconstructive, and it strikes me as far more reasonably characterizable as "harassment" than anything I have done. Do you really think, after looking over that list of actions, that you have treated me in a way that is acceptable and constructive? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors again, as you did at User talk:FlightTime, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 13:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 13:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Wdit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FlightTime#Reverted_edits_to_List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom. Every single edit was implementing the requests of other users on the Talk page, and the justification you gave for reverting them in the edit summary (that they were unsourced OR) was unambigously factually false. If you want to undo my good faith, sourced, consensus-implementing edits, then you should go the Talk page and explain what you think is wrong with them. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

, I'd normally recommend discussion and limit the block in a way that allows you to still discuss the matter on talk pages, but I'm afraid that this would encourage sealioning and a failure or refusal to "get the point". &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I understand that it will be another admin who reviews my appeal below, but I am really, really curious what you perceive to be going on in this "edit war" that warrants blocking me and not blocking @FlightTime.
 * I kind of suspect you have read the prior argument about the merits of keeping the Daily Mail citations (temporarily or otherwise) and made some wrong assumptions about the situation at the time that you blocked me. Did you understand that the previous argument about whether to cite the Daily Mail in the article had run its course on the Talk page, consensus had been reached to eliminate both the Mail citations and any information sourced from the Mail, and that then I went ahead and implemented that, both removing the citations and variously removing or re-sourcing the claims? And that the removal of information from the Mail is what @FlightTime then reverted?
 * Did you understand that the "edit war" warning @FlightTime added to my Talk page was added (after the end of the dispute about whether to keep the Daily Mail citations had already been resolved and there was no further prospect of the citations being re-added) was added pre-emptively by @FlightTime when he first reverted those changes and reintroduced content from the Daily Mail - accusing me of engaging in an edit war before I had yet made even a single revert as part of that alleged war?
 * Were you aware that before doing my one and only revert of @FlightTime's revert, I spelt out in excruciating detail on his Talk page why his stated reason for reverting (that my changes were unsourced) was false - literally listing every claim I'd added and the citation in the article that corroborated it - and his response was to delete that from his Talk page, accuse me here of harassing him by making the post, and then re-revert my changes (and reintroduce the Daily Mail claims yet again) with an entirely new, equally inapplicable and unexplained edit summary?
 * Blocking me in these circumstances - rather than blocking the editor cycling through blatantly false justifications for reverting changes agreed on in the Talk page and then deleting discussion about it - just seems nuts to me, and makes me think you are under some misapprehension about what was going on. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I feel confirmed in not making it a partial block. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that's depressing. I guess what I'm hearing here is: keep talk page stuff short and focused only on the most important points, or risk being written off as a loon by everyone who reads it. Well, noted for 2 weeks' time. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)