User talk:Rebroad/Archive 2022

ANI
I have closed your ANI thread as a favor to you, to reduce the likelihood that you be blocked more broadly or for longer. You need to cut it out. --JBL (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not agree to this "favour" - please undelete it, or tell me how I am supposed to request a review of this administrator. This needs to be addressed, IMHO. Rebroad (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * and on what basis are you entitled to delete my ANI please? Rebroad (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It was not deleted. It was closed before you talked yourself into a site wide block. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * what are you talking about? I don't understand. I am seeking a higher standard of admin behaviour on Wikipedia - why would this be asking for a site wide block? Rebroad (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because their behavior is already excellent in this situation. Every other editor disagrees with your interpretation of policies and guidelines, so perhaps you should consider that you may be incorrect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have considered it, and I am clear that I am not. Have you considered that the 6 admins so far involved are all incorrect? Rebroad (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And I am endorsing 331dot's decline above. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * you are also not addressing the basis of my unblock request. So far, I now have complaints against 4 admins. It seems Wikipedia is rotten, and I think an overhaul might be required. How do you excuse this admin behaviour exactly? Rebroad (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The basis of your unblock request is that you're claiming the WP:BLPRESTORE exemption. This only applies if there is some agreement that there is a good faith BLP concern. Every other editor who has looked at the situation has disagreed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ... and beyond that, jumping reflexively back to "But I'm right and everyone else is wrong!!!" upon everyone's rebuttals is getting you nowhere. Wikipedia is not "rotten;" it just happens to disagree with you.   Ravenswing      20:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Uğur Şahin
Hi Rebroad. When I read the original reference I was concerned as it appear he was saying that when vaccination happened it would be voluntary, which isn't the same as being against compulsory vaccination. However if you read through the updated reference you'll see he explicitly states that he is against it. At this point I suggest you listen to what other are saying and move on, there are always more articles to edits. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not disputing that he says he is against it. I am saying that him saying he is against it does not equate to him being against it. It's NPOV to state he says he's against it. It's a POV to claim he is against it, given this cannot easily be proven, as he could be lying. Rebroad (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re slipping into solipsism. Your argument could easily be extended to say we know nothing about anybody’s opinion, as we can only know what we hear, and what we hear could be false. Don’t you see just how wrong your position is? Everyone is disagreeing with you. Isn’t that a signal that you are wrong? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not a signal that I am wrong, because mass hysteria is an actual thing, and there is a lot of that about lately. Often minority views can be the correct one. Once the earth not being flat was a minority view, for example. Rebroad (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, my autism enables me to see truths that neurotypical people often cannot see. There are many examples of autistic people who have seen the truth in things long before others could. E.g. Global Warming (Greta Thunberg), the 2008 financial crisis (Michael Burry). Rebroad (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:AUTIST. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
 You have been blocked for one month from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 repeatedly been told by several editors that your idiosyncratic interpretation of BLP policy is incorrect and yet you have persisted with your disruptive editing anyway, despite a page block. Your block is now site wide. Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, can't say I didn't try. --JBL (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please can you clarify which edits you are referring to? And why this warrants a 1 month site-wide block? Of course my interpretations are idiosyncratic as I have Asperger's syndrome. Are you implying that neurodiversity is not tolerated on Wikipedia? Rebroad (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Neurodiversity is tolerated. Disruptive, tendentious editing is not permitted, and that is why I blocked you. Cullen328 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Which tendentious edits are you referring to please? Do you mean edits to talk pages or to articles? Rebroad (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean that all of your edits in the month of March were tendentious and it looks like many of your previous edits were as well. It amounts to day after day of axe grinding, forum shopping and refusal to accept that consensus is against you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of "wiggle around it" please? I am not aware of any wiggling, as for me the policies are very clear indeed. The text I reverted was clearly unsourced, and the edit war policy states clearly that that is exempt from the edit war policy for living persons. How are you able to interpret these policies differently please? Rebroad (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

As someone also on the spectrum I have to urge you to just drop it. I’ve come across genuine instances of ableism directed at people like ‘us’ on her before, but this ain’t it chief. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:21A1:B9CD:8A06:AB79 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC) 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:21A1:B9CD:8A06:AB79 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, being someone on the spectrum myself, that is no excuse. There is no medical condition -- none at all -- that constitutes a waiver from having to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, nor from honoring consensus. If you really, genuinely have a medical condition that renders you unable to recognize consensus or to follow our rules, the answer is not that you are exempted from needing to do so.  The answer is that it disqualifies you from being able to edit Wikipedia.   Ravenswing      05:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not seeking a waiver - I am claiming that I was following Wikipedia polcies to the letter, and that it is the other editors who were not. Rebroad (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that I was against consensus, but I was following policy. I have not yet managed to find a Wikipedia policy that clearly states which should be more important though, but my understanding was that policy overrides consensus. Rebroad (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR and WP:5P5 exist for a reason. Sometimes, following the policies to the letter is counterproductive, and it is in the best interest of the project to bend the rules a little.  Most policies are based on consensus, and it is perfectly fine to ignore a policy if there is consensus that it would be beneficial to the project. -  ZLEA  T \ C 16:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:Consensus is Wikipedia policy, as is clearly noted on the top of its page. Your agreement that you were editing against consensus therefore demonstrates that you were not following that Wikipedia policy.  Your understanding that policy overrides consensus is semantically null as consensus is policy, so how can it override itself? --Noren (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

My edits have all been to uphold Wikipedia policies. All of them. Specifically WP:NPOV. Since when has it ever been acceptable for an encyclopedia to state opinion as fact? As long as this practice is permitted, i can no longer support nor recommend Wikipedia as a credible source of information. Rebroad (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not claim it is a credible source of information, quite the opposite actually, read Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The only thing Wikipedia claims is that it is possible to verify the information presented. Readers are not asked to trust Wikipedia blindly, and should review the sources presented to decide what to believe. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * and yet my edits were to remove information that could not be verified, and I got blocked for doing this. Rebroad (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Rebroad, I don't think we have interacted before – I came here from the ANI thread. My day job (or parts of it) is to do with linguistic pragmatics, and I understand your argument, although I do not agree with it.


 * In a theoretical discussion on semantics, the philosophy of language, and/or such concepts as presupposition and entailment, you could argue that "Şahin is against compulsory vaccination" and "Şahin claims that he is against compulsory vaccination" are different such that only the second sentence is possible to prove. However, that does not mean that the "claims that" (or "says that") wording is more NPOV in the context of actual communication; it is, in fact, less NPOV when we talk about what a person thinks or believes. While it is always possible that somebody is lying about what they think, the default position in any communication is this: As language users, we assume that other people follow the cooperative principle unless we have reason to believe otherwise. If it is an exceptional claim, sure, then we wouldn't want to make that same claim in Wikivoice, but a statement about a personal opinion, not contradicted by other contextual factors, is not an exceptional claim.


 * In other words, if person A says "I am against X", the default assumption is that "A is against X" is a true statement, and that default assumption is not an opinion. It's possible to imagine exceptions, like when you know that person A is lying for some reason, or if you think that person A doesn't understand what X is, or if person A is obviously joking, etc. But in such cases, we use our own knowledge about the context to infer the underlying meaning.


 * On the other hand, if we say "A claims to be against X", we imply that there's reason to believe that person A could be lying about their own opinion. In a Wikipedia article, that would constitute original research, unless there are reliable independent sources supporting the idea that person A favours X. --bonadea contributions talk 14:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, we do have reason to believe otherwise. His actions do not backup his claims - e.g. there are many mandates in places in the world and yet his company is still happy to supply his products to those places. This therefore suggests that his words are noncongruent to his actions. Also, one does not need to be lying in order for their words to be noncongruent - they could simply be lacking self-awareness (which most of us, in fact, are lacking). Rebroad (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think anyone is claiming that an assumption is an opinion, and I for one, never assume that what people are saying is true - I am more likely to assume that the person believes it is true, but even then, that does not imply that it is true. Most people, myself includes, are not in touch with full truth. There are many experts on this subject, Carl Jung, and his concept of the shadow, which I would have thought was pretty widely known about. Rebroad (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lastly, the word "claim" does NOT imply there's any reason to believe a person is being incorrect, the word "claim" simply means that a person has made a statement, e.g. said something. It is almost synonymous with "said" except that it also includes that which is written, hence why it is the more apt word to use for something said or written. Rebroad (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At least, this is how the English language is used in the United Kingdom. Which country are you from? Do these words have a different meaning in the US, for example? Rebroad (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You can keep explaining why everyone is wrong but you (“belief superiority”), but you are the one blocked, and you are likely to get blocked again after it is lifted if you learn nothing from this experience. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you think I should be learning? Rebroad (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That has already been answered several times above. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Rebroad I have a question. Do you feel you've learnt anything about our edit warring policy and BLP from the whole dispute including what people have told you so far? Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Folks, this is a pointless endeavor. It is patently obvious that Rebroad hasn't budged an inch and will never budge an inch.  Whether he's trolling us or he really does believe that he's the only one who's right and everyone who contradicts him is by-definition wrong, he just is not going to concede here, and he reinforces that with every fresh comment.   Ravenswing      21:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring
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. Canterbury Tail talk 12:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If you continue to alter mentions of what someone says to be merely they claim to say it, you will be blocked. This is the worst kind of weasel wording to imply that someone is incorrect based purely on your opinion. If a source said that then fine, but here we have the person in question saying it and no source to cast doubt on it. From your edit warring on this you’re the one making claims and attempting to twist things to suit some other opinion. If you cannot back up that other reliable sources cast doubt on this belief then you can “claim” it’s only a claim, but it doesn't make it encyclopaedic and has no place in this project. If you continue this line of disruptive editing (and be under no doubt this is disruptive) you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 12:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not weasel wording at all. Where in the weasel wording article is such wording mentioned? (I've checked - it isn't). Rebroad (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your portrayal of something someone says they think as being purely a "claim" is weasel wording. You are also "claiming" a doubt as to what they really think with no evidence to back it up. Canterbury Tail talk</i> 13:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The evidence is the existance of lying. Are you claiming there is no evidence that anyone has ever lied? Rebroad (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying who said something is called "citing". It's perhaps the prime directive of Wikipedia that everything is verifiable. If you don't cite, it cannot be verifiable. Rebroad (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

, they've just reverted again. – 2 . O . Boxing  13:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked from editing Uğur Şahin for a period of 1 week for edit warring and disruption. 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:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see No_original_research. A primary source (which his statement is) does not count as verifyable information. It's classed as original research, and therefore should not be on Wikiepdia. Rebroad (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. You didn't specify that Wikipedia policy you're acting according to. I cannot request an unblock if the reasons for blocking are not made clear first. Please can you clarify which policy I breached? Rebroad (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought for edit warring and disruption was pretty clear. WP:EW and WP:IDHT should cover it, if you need links to the policy and guideline. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * your declination of unblock does not address my claim that my edits were exempt from the edit warring policy. Please can you address this. Rebroad (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the policies you are quoting are idiosyncratic and are not supported by the consensus of the editors who have both helped develop and enforce such policies. Your continued reverts and WP:IDHT behaviour are disruptive and the block is in place to prevent more of the same.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this (that they are idiosyncratic, and against consensus). But nevertheless, I am basing my actions on Wikipedia policy as it is currently written. What should be prioritised? Policy or consensus? Rebroad (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So I just want to clarify one thing. You basically think the policy means that anything anyone ever says cannot be taken at face value because it's possible they may be lying? So basically we cannot use anything anyone ever says, or have to qualify everything anyone says. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 19:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking this clarifying question. This question is actually answered (IMHO) in WP:NPOV, when talking about minority views. As a view becomes more minority, it becomes increasingly important to state/attribute who it is that believes it. In cases where a view is undisputed, then it is less necessary to attribute who said it. Also, the sentence "to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them" I think is key to this dispute. We should not be debating his belief, we should simply be reporting what he says it is. Rebroad (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rebroad Not involved in anyway but, consensus is more important. In order for Wikipedia to be operational we need community views on how this wiki operates instead of corporate views all the time, otherwise it will fail. Consensus is the reason we have Policy, so technically your basing your actions on your own consensus and views. SoyokoAnis  -  talk  13:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * no, I was basing my actions on Wikipedia policy, which seems to be going against consensus, which therefore begs the question - why even have these policies if they can be ignored? Why not make them all guidelines and clearly state that consensus overrides them? Rebroad (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Request

 * I think that the reviewing administrator should take the last sentence of this request at face-value, and extend the block to indefinite. --JBL (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with JBL here. The block was explained, over and over, and while I believe Rebroad is sincere in their lack of understanding, that is the problem.  I think their perspective, their world view, their "wiring" is such they aren't ever going to understand.  Wikipedia isn't therapy, and by all means, not everyone is wired to work in a collaborative environment.  This is neither good nor bad, just factual, and perhaps Rebraod should find an outlet that is better suited to their temperament, as their editing here is obviously interfering with the ability of others to contribute.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was intentionally interfering with contributions that were in breach of Wikipedia policy. These blocks are interfering with my ability to interfere. The role of admins on here is to assist those who are contributing in-line with policy and to disrupt users who are contributing in a way that disrupts constructive edits. What we actually now have is a situation where the admins are supporting disruptive edits (that go against policy) and are blocking users who were supporting Wikipedia by disrupting disruptive edits. Anyway, good-luck with this obviously broken project! Rebroad (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think that you were intentionally interfering with contributions that were in breach of Wikipedia policy, but literally everyone else says you're incorrect about your interpretation of policy, who is more likely correct about policy, you, or literally everyone else? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've no idea how one would determine an answer to that question, but I don't think the numbers prove anything, as like I've said before, the majority can be wrong. Rebroad (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My logic is being consistently misinterpreted here. I'm saying that policy is rigid. One either follows it or one does not. The word "compromise" means to deviate. I'm simply pointing out that there is a logical contradiction in the policy. Why am I being blocked indefinitely for trying to improve the policies to make them less contradictory and therefore easier to adhere to? Rebroad (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're misinterpreting the policy. That's why no one agrees with your interpretation, and why you're indef blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ^^^^What this guy said. Read the WP:FIVEPILLARS, which are the fundamental principles for Wikipedia.  The 5th Pillar is "Wikipedia has no firm rules".  I think you need firm rules, or you get a bit lost, and that is why Wikipedia isn't for you.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if the rules were 100% hard and fast, if everyone is telling you that you're interpreting wrong, maybe you should listen? It's like watching this play out, over and over again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One attempt to get you to explain your logic: in the first sentence of this, you indicate that you knew you were not following WP:Consensus, which is a Wikipedia Policy, and then in the same sentence claim to have been following Wikipedia Policy. This makes so little sense that I have to ask if you are aware that WP:Consensus is a Policy that you just admitted to have been editing in violation of? --Noren (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Due to neverending discussions for over a week where you repeatedly claim that everyone else is wrong and only you are right, I have revoked your talk page access. Those discussions have now come to an end. Please read Unblock Ticket Request System for your options going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)