User talk:Ginjuice4445

October 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2018 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wasn't an edit war, it was a materially new addition to the article. Petty. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Gab (social network)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My reason for undoing your edits] was due to my perception that your edits lack neutrality: . Such as removing sources here: .  --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit warring doesn't have anything to do with neutrality but rather that I made 4 reverts in a 24 hour period (which weren't really reverts, but anyway). There have been many changes to that paragraph in the last 24 hours which mean that the discussion on the talk page is out of date and the wording needs fixing. I am attempting to restore neutrality here rather than destroy it. Re: source removal the editor who put them there gave those sources outsize importance by turning a series of ordinary references into a separate "notes" section of the article. The sources belong there, but as inline references just like all the others, not "super-references" that draw greater attention to themselves. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ginjuice I'm very new to Wikipedia editing but find the process of resolving conflicts interesting. I do not know if it is appropriate to discuss here but I do not know how else to enter into your mediation process. I see that you have come to similar conclusions about the bias of the Gab page and have made some comments on the Gab Talk page to which Grayfell responded somewhat positively and then I responded with somewhat more general rationale for an alternative viewpoint on the matter. I welcome any suggestions or tips. I find markup to be counterintuitive and distracting so use minimal amounts (prefer the visual editor which is not an option here), but suggestions to mark answered = no are unclear to me because I don't see an appropriate place to edit that for the sections I find most biased (the initial paragraph and the section on the Synagogue shooting).

A more meta discussion might revolve around the insistence on use of what conservatives call 'liberal' media to support a WP:NPOV which feels like a catch-22, but that's a different discussion.

What is your current status and how did you request mediation (judging by the non-progress of the Gab 'talk' page so far, I suspect this will be a long process). DellAnderson (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines
Do not remove other people's comments without a specific, policy-based reason. See Talk_page_guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Alert
--K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring again
I count four reverts to Gab in the last few hours. Seeing as how you were recently blocked for edit warring, you should know this is a problem. You should self-revert, or you will likely be blocked again. Per WP:3RR, a "revert" doesn't just mean you hit the undo button, it means you've undone other editors' actions to restore your own preferred content. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't edit warring. Please look at the edits, and you'll find all I was doing was cleaning up citations. Looking forward for your confirmation that the edits are legit. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2018 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Gab Article Vandalism?
Re: The "2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting" section:

"Despite backlash, the CEO of Gab, Andrew Torka, has maintained that he will do everything in his power to keep the service running, even as investors cut ties.[59]"

Can you look at the section I wrote in the "Talk" section about how a headline was used, but then distorted to convey a meaning that was not in the source that was referenced? It looks like vandalism to me, and I don't have enough experience to know what to do next. I'm confident in my opinion enough to make the simple change, but now the Article is "protected", and can't be edited. It's obvious. The Editor replaced the word "companies" (cut ties) and replaced it with "investors" (cut ties), in an article that was about how people are still trying to invest despite the fact that Gab is in process of being deplatformed. The companies "cutting ties" are Paypal, Gab's web host provider, and it's Registrar. Still, people are trying to invest in it.

1) Am I right?  Was it vandalism?

2) Should something be done?  If so, what?

3) Who did the edit that was possible vandalism?  Is there a way to tell?  I'm concerned that it might be one of the Editors that are currently "in play" in the Discussion, i.e. "bad faith", etc...

4) Also, I was aware of the fact that Gab had raised over a million dollars by investors, and simply assumed that a fact this significant would have been included, but when I happened to look for it, there was this huge, gaping hole where this well-referenced information was missing from the "Revenue" section.

5) Are you willing to help me add this information, and if so, what is the best way of doing it?

6) Do you know the reason why the page was protected?  This all might be explained by oversight, but then again it might not.

7) One (unnamed) Editor seems to chronically misspell words in the "Talk" page, seems quite "condemnatory" on the topic of Gab, and the suspected vandalism sentence spells Torba's name "Torka".  There might be a connection between a possibly biased editor and possible vandalism regarding Gab's "investors".

The timing of the page protection is suspect. Significant errors and omissions exist, people are in the process of fixing them, and suddenly the page is protected.

I'm new at this, so if I've done this wrong, in the wrong place, etc... please let me know.

TIA 2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it "vandalism," although I would call a lot of the edits going through to that page "dishonest." If you see something you disagree with, the way to get things done is to register an account and try to argue your case on the talk page. It's what I did when I saw how one-sided things were on that page. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've taken your suggestion and created a registered account. It's going to be obvious that my new identity is the same as the IPv6 address. Is there a protocol to follow to minimize the possibility of "sock puppet" accusations, etc...? Also is there a way to change all the IP addresses to my new, registered IS?


 * Finally I think you should actually look into the vandalism possibility. Once you actually see the headline in the source article and then see what was written into the Wikipedia article, you'll see there's no way for it to have been accidental.  The meaning change is critical.  Investors abandoning Gab vs. Investors trying to give them money.  I'm more certain of this than I was yesterday/last night.  There's a proposal to move the page to "semi-protected" status, so I'll be able to jump right into it and fix that passage as soon as that happens.  Thanks for the response.Tym Whittier (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

January 2019
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gab (social network). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''That was an interesting attempt right after the subject's latest recruitment call. One source don't trump all the rest, which is what this warning is for.'' Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Gab (social network) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 you 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. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
Adding that this is also due to your edit warring yesterday on the page. Please read the above sanction carefully and understand it is with immediate effect. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Lord Roem. I understand appeal can be made to the admin who imposed it, and I do so here. I was not engaged in edit warring nor was I sanctioned for it yesterday - despite the warning, if you review you'll see my edits to the article were fully in compliance with Wikipedia rules, so the warning was not justified. There was additionally some support on the talk page for incorporating references to the company's free speech policies. See in particular AKA Casey Rollins' and w umbolo 's comments. Finding the right language requires discussion; these are not disruptive edits but considered proposals. It's why I'm on the talk page and not in the article.. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Ginjuice. Respectfully, I'm not inclined to modify this sanction when--during the course of a talk page discussion where it seems your position may be against consensus--you add disputed text/phrasing into the article. That's not really a sign of hearing out the other editors or taking anything from the conversation. This, taken with your seemingly single-purpose focus on this article (over 80% of your edits are on this page or its talk page), and the fact this appears to be a repeat of behavior back in October when you were blocked for edit warring over the same issue, lead me to believe it'd be best for you to stay off the page for at least a month's time. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is BS. There was no edit warring this time, at least not by this editor. w umbolo   ^^^  10:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Lord Roem Funny that I get banned for a single edit, and I wasn't planning on making further edits without asking for consensus, but okay. I won't fight it because I know I'll lose regardless. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 12:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * AKA Casey Rollins, why would you post such a remark after it has been explained to you on your page that the alert is not a punishment and you have not been banned? Bishonen &#124; talk 13:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC).
 * Doesn't the alert say I have been banned from editing the Gab page for one month? That's what I'm seeing from my end... AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 13:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, this isn't even my talk page. * face palms * AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 14:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a conflict of interest?
Hi, Ginjuice4445. Are you personally, or financially related to Gab, or Andrew Torba in any way? If so, you must declare it. Undisclosed paid editing is a serious violation of our policies. You must respond to COI inquiries and cease editing immediatly until you have done so. The detailed notice is below. Thank you. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 08:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ginjuice4445. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Gab (social network), but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Ginjuice4445. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 08:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
You still have not responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying you may be blocked from editing. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 14:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gab Dissenter. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 14:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI, ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉