User talk:Wickrock


 * --Jorm (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Center for Immigration Studies, you may be blocked from editing. Jorm (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * If you revert again, you will be at 3 reversions in your edit war, and you will be reported.--Jorm (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Jorm. Why did you claim the minor change I made "is not the appropriate wording"? I explained that the following sentence of the lead uses the word "allegation", so the word "said" seems a little strong. I noticed on your user page you were a member of the Wikimedia Foundation, are you currently an admin on Wikimedia/Wikipedia? Get back to me, thanks...Wickrock (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You do not get to revert in 24 hours. 3RR is total, there's no time associated with it.  Your changes have been reverted by multiple editors now.  You must get consensus for your changes, period.  You can't just wait and make them later.  This clock doesn't reset.
 * You must now open a discussion on the talk page and explain what you want to change, why you think it should be changed, and provide sourcing for the change.--Jorm (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Jorm, just checked the 3RR policy page and it says "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period", so according to rules of Wikipedia, after 24 hours users are able to edit again. I also don't see anything about needing consensus (you claimed this twice even though I'm not seeing any rules that say anything about consensus) before editing on the article again, please point me to that rule if I overlooked it. Thanks. Wickrock (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I absolutely guarantee you that if you follow your wiki-lawyering logic you will find yourself blocked in very, very short order. Because what's going to happen is this:  you're going to have the exact same pattern happen (you make your edit, you get reverted, you make your edit, you get reverted, etc.) and then you will move beyond what's happening now and into "nuisance editor" and if it happens a third time no one will save you and you will likely be indefinitely blocked for being WP:NOTHERE.  I say this not as a threat but because I have seen this exact pattern happen hundreds of times.
 * As for consensus: Wikipedia works on the BRD principle: Bold, Revert, Discuss.  You were bold with your first edit. You were then reverted.  At that point, you were supposed to discuss.  But you didn't do that, instead you reverted. When you are reverted it means that you do not have consensus for your edit - even if it's a single person who disagrees.
 * With an article like this - a contentious one, that is very much used to having random drive-by newbies come to "correct the great wrong of this thing being slandered" or whatever - nearly every word has been discussed and consensus has been reached regarding the wording. If you're going to change the wording, you need to prove your consensus.
 * And before you come back and ask: It is your job to read the discussions, not mine. The onus is on you. No one is going to do your homework for you.--Jorm (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Jorm, first of all i've only made a few edits i don't even know what "wiki-lawyering" is so please dont accuse me of it, it sounds like something you are doing here much more than me by barraging me with all of these super-strict rules. Secondly I just checked WP:3RR again a second time and it does reset unlike your claim of "This clock doesn't reset". So why are you just making stuff up, especially as a former WMF member? Should I report you for lying about wikipedia's rules like you threatened to report me above even though i'm new to wikipedia and have never broken any of the policies/rules? Are former WMF members allowed to just lie to newbie users they think are dumb or something, is this how wikipedia works?

Thirdly you claimed "You were bold with your first edit. You were then reverted. At that point, you were supposed to discuss" but the user that reverted my initial edit gave no reason in the edit summary why they reverted so how am I supposed to discuss when I have no idea what I did wrong? Lastly i am not trying to "correct the great wrong of this thing being slandered" i simply noticed that the text in the lead looked out of place i.e. something as strong as a hate group label for a mainstream immigration think-tank, so i simply tried to tweak the wording a little to make it more appropriate, while still leaving in place the hate-group designation, as i said in my edit summary. You seem to know an awful lot about wikipedia rules (you are lecturing and bullying me when i've done nothing wrong, and you even threatened me earlier) so what makes you so knowledgeable sir? According to your user page you aren't even an admin, asked you earlier if you were, but you never answered. Wickrock (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * First, if I'm coming across as bullying, I apologize. That's not my intent; I think I'm just frustrated and for that I apologize.
 * Whether or not I'm an admin isn't relevant, honestly. An important thing is that admins aren't really... it's not a special power.  I mean, it is, but admins have no greater or lesser power in deciding consensus about article content. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, not me, not any admin, not even Jimmy Wales himself. Being an "admin" is like being a janitor. It's a toolkit. It means that you clean up the messes. A set of advanced permissions, but none of them are about moderation or content.
 * (For the record, I have held those permissions - I have held the highest permissions, on all wiki projects - but as I said, it's not relevant.)
 * By "wiki-lawyering" I meant that I was taking issue with the idea of "well, the letter of the text says I can do this in 24 hours" bit. People arguing the specific rule because of the rules. Because that's what it is: it's focusing on the letter and not the spirit, and I know that the inevitable end of the wiki-lawyer career path is a block. No one has any better than a dim view of this strategy.
 * Feel free to report me to anyone and anyone you want, for anything anywhere. Have fun with that.--Jorm (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Jorm I'm not going to report you since you are probably so high up in the wikipedia food-chain it would be pointless, and to be fair you are engaging with me here so it's not like you are being a complete jerk (that's sarcasm, please don't report me for insults). The thing is I feel like you may be operating in bad-faith (i apologize if i'm wrong and you are acting in good-faith on this issue) mainly because you said the following:"Wikipedia works on the BRD principle: Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold with your first edit. You were then reverted. At that point, you were supposed to discuss. But you didn't do that, instead you reverted. The problem with that is the two users who reverted my edit gave no explanantion in their edit summaries (one user said nothing at all, and the second user said "nah"). So how can I discuss something when i have no idea what the issue is (especially since all i did was literally change ONE WORD, and you and others jumped all over me like i re-wrote the entire article). Another reason i think you could be operating in bad-faith is when i inquired to you: Why did you claim the very minor change I made "is not the appropriate wording"? you completely ignored the question and then went on to lecture me--Wickrock (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (Protip: don't mark your edits as "minor" because they aren't. What that does is it makes it harder for me to pick out that you actually replied.)
 * If someone reverts you without a message, that usually means "oh christ not this again". It means that you should go to the talk page and look for an existing discussion about the topic. If one doesn't exist, you should start the topic yourself. Again, the onus is on you, not other people.
 * You discuss on the talk page. That's what it's for.--Jorm (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the minor edit thing Jorm, didn't know that was improper. Could you please answer a question, this is the third time I've asked it, i'd really appreciate a reply. You said: "This is not the appropriate wording"...what am I missing, what is inappropriate IYO about the very minor alteration i made to the text? Thanks...Wickrock (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That specific question is one you ask on the article talk page, not here. But I'll answer my objection; other editors may have different ones (this is why you use the article talk page):  1) We don't like to use "allegedly" if we can avoid it with regards to statements made (it's weasel words), and 2) it softens language (which is white-washing).--Jorm (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I may start a discussion on the article page later or 2moro but TBH i'm a little bit apprehensive and feel like there could be a political agenda going on from many of the comments made by users about SPLC, etc. Last question...after I wait 24 hours if I tweak the word "said" to "described" (which is the word that is used in the "criticism section" and seems to be backed up by sources) would you still revert my edit? Wickrock (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would let "described" through but that's me; you should def. still ask. Don't be apprehensive, but also don't be... brash?  Brash. And you don't have to wait to start a discussion.  You probably won't need to wait to make the edit, in fact, if you indicate what you just said in the summary.  But again: I can speak only for myself.  I would be very careful about making comments about political agendas. Many people wear their politics on their sleeves, but that doesn't mean they operate in bad faith, and one of the fastest ways to get blocked is to start ranting about "being censored because of my politics."--Jorm (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is ironic, lol, since you would then be sort of censored (blocked for complaining about political bias) which would just confirm that there is in fact a "Wikipedia Elite" that censor people they disagree with politically. As a member of Wikimedia Foundation and a long-time Wikipedia user how often do you see that type of censorship on wikipedia? I'm asking because some people that i have talked to about wikipedia (who are not right-wing or far-right just middle of the road maybe center-right people) have said a lot of political articles are slanted in a biased liberal direction especially on topics related to Trump or the Russia probe or similar topics.

One last question about the discuss/get consensus thing and how it works, so if I discuss on a talk page first and then make the edit but someone goes and reverts the edit what does a user do next? Do they discuss more and then edit back the text that was removed, or do they then have to give up and move on to another article? Wickrock (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like you took the wrong meaning from that but whatever. Feel free to continue down that path if you like, you do you.
 * They typically should discuss, and most people will. You should get consensus before making edits if they're going to be controversial. That's pretty much it.--Jorm (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Enjoying the discussion with you here. Just wanted your feedback (esp since I'm assuming you have knowledge on how wikipedia works based on your previous high-level position) on something you said earlier...when you say Many people wear their politics on their sleeves, but that doesn't mean they operate in bad faith. I hope you are correct about most wikipedia users, for the most part they probably don't operate in bad faith, but do you really think that if someone is say an authoritarian SJW or a far-right Nazi that it doesn't influence how they edit and act on wikipedia? Wickrock (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I reject the premise of your question. Equating people advocating for civil rights and people advocating for the extermination of others is offensive.--Jorm (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest with you, I was going thru your twitter page just now and saw a tweet that says something like "I want to see this on a t-shirt" with an image of julian assange being dragged out of the embassy he was living in. Are you saying Assange did something illegal and Wikileaks should be shut down and Assange put in prison in the U.S. for practicing journalism and whistleblowing? Should Edward Snowden be jailed too? You say you are for civil rights (journalism and free speech and whistle-blowing are all civil rights in an open society). So what is the deal dude, are you an authoritarian anti free-speech SJW yourself and you have just been playing games with me the past few hours, or are you having a discussion here in good faith? Wickrock (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Holy shit, did you pick the wrong person to bring up this dumbshit argument with.
 * I have known Julian personally since 1997 and I have absolutely hated him since about 20 minutes after that initial encounter. Seeing him in chains warms my fucking heart, you betcha, regardless of my politics. He's an asshole of the first order, a homophobe, a misogynist, an anti-American activist, and I absolutely believe the charges against him, regardless of my political opinions.
 * But okay! I'm done with you.  Via con dios.--Jorm (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow...so you believe what the U.S. government says about Assange (the same gov't that told us Iraq has WMD's)?? So should Chelsea Manning be imprisoned also, since by your logic she helped an "anti-American"(nice to know you think this country that locks up more people than any country on earth is so great). And what about Edward Snowden, is he an anti-American spy working for Russians, should he be jailed too? Assange may be a sexist anti-American prick but he did not do anything illegal (except possibly in Sweden, which is a separate issue). Look I apologize if my assessment of you is wrong but your twitter page pretty much identifies you as an SJW ideologue (even worse an authoritarian type SJW who wants to jail journalists and whistleblowers). For the record in response to your last reply I agree that equating people advocating for civil rights and people advocating for the extermination of others was dumb on my part but I did not mean the question in that way. SJW's are bad but Nazis are worse, we can agree on that (or maybe not). And just for the record I'm not some right-wing conservative person like you may assume, I consider myself someone on the left or center-left (just don't like authoritarian people, whether they are on the far-left or the far-right). BTW how exactly do you know Julian Assange personally? Wickrock (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I'm genuinely curious what your opinion is Jorm on Manning and Snowden, should they be imprisoned also? And why do you think that helping someone crack a PW in order to access more evidence of government illegality is a criminal act? If you don't like Assange that's totally fine, I actually think he is sort of a jerk myself based on interviews I've seen of him, but why would someone like you want to see him jailed? I'm guessing most people who work for Wikipedia/Wikimedia think Assange is doing good work exposing information that needs to be out in the open as much as possible (that includes this government you seem to think is so great, that went to war based on lies about WMD, and killed millions of innocent people in the process). By the way even Jimbo Wales (who I'm assuming you know based on your work) said the following: "People with information about wrongdoing in open societies should have the opportunity to make that information public"...Wickrock (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

" Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions."
Did you miss the sentence after the one you quoted? And 3rr isn't an entitlement. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, as you did at User talk:Jorm, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. 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:. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

cool, have a nice day Wickrock (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)