User talk:R.Giskard R.

November 2022
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐 00:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Andrevan
 * Nonsense.
 * You are here as a shill trying to intimidate me for complaining about Muboshgu's blatant violations of wikipedia's policy against wholesale reversion of good faith edits without commenting.
 * I note that you have not said anything about the content of my edits, either here, in the talk pages of the articles, or on Muboshgu's talk page (where your drive-by insult about my username was neither relevant nor appropriate). R.Giskard R. (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm here to put a warning so that if you make other edits that are reverted by other editors, there will be a warning here level 1, so that they understand you are aware of the policies and guidelines and can start at the next level of warning.
 * Accusing Muboshgu of tendentious editing and POV editing is certainly problematic, you should AGF and also you have no evidence that Muboshgu was pushing a POV. Muboshgu is a trusted administrator and he certainly isn't reverting the material to try to push a political POV at all. Your edit actually introduced WP:DAILYBEAST which is considered marginally reliable for controversial statements of facts in a WP:BLP, and didn't support the text you added. I would contend that in no way is Muboshgu attempting to help Boebert. Simply discuss constructively on the talk page Andre🚐 21:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Andrevan are you kidding me? What a load of crap!
 * 1) re: "I'm here to put a warning so that if you make other edits that are reverted by other editors, there will be a warning here level 1, so that they understand you are aware of the policies.."  Nonsense.  There is no such thing on wikipedia as a 'warning level one' for making edits that get reverted FOR NO STATED REASON.
 * 2) re: " Your edit actually introduced WP:DAILYBEAST. .."  That is a flat out lie.   If you'd bothered to look, you'd have seen that Daily Beast was cited ALL OVER THAT ARTICLE before I got there.  There were five references to Daily Beast when I found the article.  I merely moved one of the previous references that WAS ALREADY THERE. Now, you are just pulling crap out of thin air to support the notion that I need a 'warning'.  That's harassment.
 * 3) re: "Accusing Muboshgu of tendentious editing and POV editing is certainly problematic, you should AGF..." Now that's ironic, I went to Muboshgu's talk page to complain about his behavior for REVERTING a good-faith edit without comment or discussion, and abusing the Twinkle tool to do it.  Muboshgu is not allowed to revert another editor's good faith edit (or ANY edit for that matter) without explanation or discussion. It is Muboshgu that failed to AGF.  Perhaps you missed THAT fact also?  Did you also miss the fact that (in good faith) I gave Muboshgu an opportunity to correct the situation and apologize?  So, Andrevan, what EXACTLY are you doing here besides breaking MORE rules?
 * My advice to you:
 * You need to stop 'warning' me for things I didn't do and stop lying about my edits.
 * You need to stop intimidating me for complaining about another editor's MISBEHAVIOR on his talk page.
 * You need to stop 'impersonating an administrator'. Those rights were taken away from you in 2018 -- for good reason I believe.
 * And, you need to stop stalking me. As I have not undone the revert, this matter is between Muboshgu and me, we are now discussing it on his talk page, and this is none of YOUR business.  Please butt out. R.Giskard R. (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll leave you alone after this message, mainly because your tone is quite off-putting. Your edit was in my view unconstructive, you added new material sourced to Daily Beast (nevermind if the source was used elsewhere in the article, that sentence was new and controversial) I saw that Muboshgu did not warn you for the edit, so I opted to do so. I am not "stalking" you, I have never interacted with you prior to this edit - if I'm stalking anyone, it's Muboshgu. As far as warning you for your edit, that is within Wikipedia policy and guideline for non-administrators to do, users may issue such warnings and it is not considered impersonation, I have not claimed to be an admin (see Impersonating an administrator an explanatory essay Any non-admin editor is permitted to warn another editor that they may be blocked, or that their contributions may be deleted, so long as the warning is not phrased in a way that suggests that the non-admin editor giving the warning is themselves able to impose a block or delete a page. It is also permissible for a non-admin editor to place warning templates on an editor's user talk page, as these warning templates indicate that further misconduct may lead to a block, but do not represent the editor adding the template as able to impose the block.) As far as my 2018 resignation, you can read about it at User:Andrevan/2018, and I chose to resign rather than submit to an arbcom case to waste a bunch of my and community's time for a volunteer project that I do for fun. I stand by some of the blocks that I made as an admin that some people didn't like, there were a few very mistaken comments and statements I made, some of which were about accusing editors of being Russian Trump trolls. My advice to you is to change your tone and method of communication. Best wishes. Andre🚐 23:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Andrevan. That's a thoughtful response, I learned something from you.
 * I will take your friendly advice and offer you some as well. Your 'chiming in' [./With_https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php%3Ftitle=User_talk:Muboshgu&oldid=1121378072 with a snotty comment about my username and politics] on Muboshgu's talk page was totally inappropriate, unconstructive and inflammatory, especially your 'piling on' following SPECIFICO's equally unhelpful comment.
 * Please think about this when you criticize me for my 'tone and method of communication'. You really had no business making that comment, although I have made this same mistake myself, long ago.
 * Best regards, R.Giskard R. (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One final note, my comment about your username was not intended to offend you. I was surprised that someone who would have appreciated the reference would be a right-winger. Because I assumed someone hassling Musboshgu was a right-winger because usually that's who hassles him. My apologies on my comment about your username. Andre🚐 00:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * LoL! Such a classic case of mutual ASS-U-ME.
 * Oh well, these are the hazards of editing political articles on Wikipedia.
 * My problem with Musboshgu was that he reverted me in what looked like a 'knee-jerk' reaction. Then I saw he (a) reverted me with Twinkle, (b) reverted me without comment or discussion, (c) that he was an admin, and (d) that he was the one who created the article and the 'puffy' lead.  He also created the 'Kushner Family' article, which also looked like a 'puff piece' to me.  I was sure this was a case of a tendentious editor/administrator (which, technically, he is) pushing his PoV (which he maybe is not).
 * A little bit of an apology from Musboshgu would go a long way, not holding my breath.
 * By the way, do you know R. Giskard's full name? R.Giskard R. (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Funny that you accuse me of not assuming good faith while assuming bad faith on my part. And you think I owe you an apology? Your edit was bad and I was right to revert it. You're wasting a lot of your time and mine by not acknowledging that (1) your edit was biased against the subject and (2) it wasn't supported by the source you used. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Funny? Is that how you see it?  Meanwhile you STILL haven't taken responsibility for breaking MULTIPLE rules on reverting without cause, explanation or discussion.
 * This is not 'funny', it is stupid. And now you DARE to put this stupid crap on my talk page?
 * @Muboshgu, the AGF 'violation' BEGAN when YOU decided to revert me without comment, without discussion and without any stated reason.  Also, you abused your privileges by violating the policy around abuse of Sparkle.   You could have told me what you thought was wrong with my edit (per the RULES) in your revert summary. You could have said something on the TALK PAGE (per the RULES).  You COULD have responded appropriately after I took the time to bring your error and violation to your attention on your peersonal talk page. You did none of this.  You reverted me with your Twinkle bot within minutes, without thought or comprehension, and now you scramble to build your case against me in retrospect.
 * When I took the time to point out your errors, you could have admitted your (clearly obvious) mistake and worked it out with me. You didn't.
 * Lastly, in yet another clear demonstration of your negligence here, your edit history on the article proves that you know that my edit WAS supported by multiple sources in the article. You only raised this issue AFTER I called you out on your Twinkle Revert -- you know damn well that my edit was supported by sources that were already in the article, but you are LYING.
 * And, worst of all, you KNOW you screwed up, you KNOW you broke the rules, and you think it is '' Funny" that you might owe me an apology.
 * One of these days, I will learn to NOT allow people like you to recognize, apologize and correct their mistakes. Sadly, people like you will only learn when I take my case straight to the 'wikipedia police'.
 * Wikipedia is a mess, thanks to people like you and thanks to people who make excuses for people like you. R.Giskard R. (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That next-to-last sentence appears to me to be a legal threat. Retract that now or your block will be extended. cc: . That's a bigger issue than your ongoing belligerence. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu Wow -- are you serious? Here is the text you are citing:
 * cc: @Cullen328 @Andrevan
 * "A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target Wikipedia or other editors. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia."
 * Muboshgu, if you are  seriously and sincerely  interpreting my use of 'police' (lower case, in quotation marks) to mean anything other than the Wikipedia 'police' (dispute resolution process) and NOT the external (real life) police, then I guess I should clarify for you.
 * That said, the very idea that any external (real life) police would get involved in your crappy violations of wikipedia policies should be utterly, prima-facie, INSANE and easily discernable as totally assinine.
 * I think you are not that stupid. I think you are neither serious nor sincere. I think you are gaming the system.  This is the same bull$hit you are pulling to defend yourself against my complaint on your talk page.
 *  Eiher way, if you are still not clear, I am referring to the 'police' as being the "dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia". 
 *  Do you need a more explicit retraction? 
 * Here is my question for you. If you have done nothing wrong, why are you working SO HARD to come up with nonsense and bull$hit accusations like this utter, total crap about No legal threats ? R.Giskard R. (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't edit a reply I replied to, but I can AGF and assume 'police' meant 'wikipedia police'. Beyond that, I will let the admin who reviews your unblock request respond to you. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect to what you call my "ongoing belligerence" -- by that I assume you mean my unwillingness to let your egregious misbehavior go unaddressed?
 * You keep dancing around the facts.
 * Did you, or did you not, abuse Sparkle? Did you, or did you not revert my edit without reason, discussion or comment? Did you, or did you not lobby @Cullen328 to block me? R.Giskard R. (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that you are blocked perhaps you will consider that I was trying to help you out. Muboshgu wasn't abusing Twinkle, he was simply reverting your edit because it looked like the source failed verification and wasn't reliable for or didn't support the sentence you added. Whether or not you agree, you aren't going to get far with this tack. His edit wasn't a use of admin rights since any user can revert with Twinkle. You're now in hot water for tilting so hard and going on a personal-attack-laden rant. If you want to be unblocked I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and keep WP:CALM. And what exactly do you mean by Two other users apparently sympathetic to the violator (and who admitted alignment with Muboshgu's political viewpoints) 'chimed in and piled on'.? In this case weren't you claiming that Muboshgu was trying to make Boebert and Kushner look good? P.S. I remember reading and I see that Giskard's last name was Robot Giskard Reventlov, what's the story there? Andre🚐 19:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I will refute that particular ridiculous aspersion. Nobody lobbied me in any way, shape or form. I have over 43,000 pages on my watch list, including Muboshgu's talk page. While monitoring my watchlist, I saw your angry, accusatory section heading, and read that thread. I then looked at your other edits, and soon concluded that you were completely out of control and acting in an utterly unacceptable fashion. I blocked you to stop your disruption. That is the whole story. The behavior you have been exhibiting is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and never will be. Cullen328 (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
 You have been blocked for one month from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:.


 * You have engaged in unwarranted belligerence and hostility on a collaborative project. You must stop. Cullen328 (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: File an unblock request that addresses your own egregious misconduct instead of viciously attacking another editor for failing to leave an edit summary. This is your last chance. You have succeeded in one thing only: Searing your uniquely vituperative style of editing into the memories of several administrators. If you hope to continue editing here, then you must make a 180 degree turn away from your grotesque misconduct. What appears far more likely to me is that you will continue your exceptionally ugly trolling campaign as soon as you are unblocked, and will then be blocked indefinitely. Please feel free to prove me wrong, and start editing productively, instead of engaging in complete jerk editing behavior. Prove me wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)