User talk:Iistal

Blocked, again

Let's review what I said when I unblocked you (emphasis added):

Thank you for your message above. It demonstrates that you have read the guidelines, acknowledge them, and are willing to abide by them. To that end, I think Wikipedia will benefit if you are able to make constructive contributions to articles and to discussions about articles. I am granting the unblock request. Remember that we're a community working together to improve the encyclopedia, so if anything comes up in the future where you aren't sure how to proceed, feel free to drop me a message and ask for advice.

Since that time, I notice a disturbing trend in your behaviour:

• You make unsourced or ill-sourced edits to biographies of living people
• You are warned about the BLP violations
• You acknowledge the warnings by removing them from your user talk page. (WP:BLANKING: "If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents.")
• You make the same or similar edits to BLPs
• You have made no edits to any article talk page since you were unblocked.

Effectively, you've disregarded all warnings and messages left for you, refused to enter into any discussions, and plowed on ahead with behaviour that can't be called anything but disruptive at this point. You've caused me to reconsider my assessment that Wikipedia will benefit from you having editing privileges. I no longer think that, so I am blocking your account indefinitely.

Do not be surprised if the only way you get your account unblocked is to accept a topic ban that prohibits you from editing any and all articles related to living people. —C.Fred (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Please provide linkable examples. I didn't make that many edits during the time period in question so it shouldn't be hard. I can defend those. I can not defend your characterizations because I don't accept their premise. Iistal (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• C.Fred, do you mind dropping a diff or two? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's see. Here's two instances:

• This edit to Bruce Willis; [1] the cited source does not mention the day/date the child was born. The same edit had been made 17 hours before. [2]
• This edit to Goldie Hawn, [3] which added dates and details not supported by the sources.

Those are just a few and are right at the top of the edit history. The further I went, the more examples I could list. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

C.Fred, okay a tangent here - either I'm missing something really obvious or there's something else is going on with Bruce Willis. I mention this because I chastised another editor for saying the edit was unsourced and I may owe them an apology. The source states the baby was born Thursday. The paper has a date of Feb 5th. How does that not give us a date of Feb 3rd? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: I forgot how much of a pain narrow newspaper columns are to read. :) I've read that article two or three times, and this is the first time I saw that word "Thursday" hiding in there (first full-width line below the image caption). —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Just looking at the diffs between the unblock and reblock shows numerous unsourced BLP additions. First example I looked at is [4] which added specific dates (just looking at DOBs) that are not in the cited sources. It is a good faith edit for new people, not for those previously warned and blocked for the same behaviour.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I am late. Thank you NeilN for pointing out I was in the right regarding newspaper date in Willis article, which was thoughtlessly reverted. Someone should reinsert Feb. 3 since it's now established the source directly verifies the date.

You will also find that each of the dates inserted in the Hawn edit are directly from the cited sources, except for the word "early" in Russell paragraph. So that is not a valid example.

Of these examples given, the Nicholson link is the only edit where dates are inserted without citing. I admit being too lazy to make citations for that, but the dates and timelines are correct per my research.

Regardless, all of these are kind of trivial. Really what is the big deal about adding months and dates? I see many large articles where there are a lot of dates and events mentioned, and the page often has less than ten sources. I'm talking about (for lack of a better word) has-beens who are off the radar and don't have a lot of editors flocking to their page to add content and sources, not subjects like Madonna or Angelina Jolie whose pages have a citation for almost every single sentence. Feedback please. Iistal (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What's the "big deal"? The "big deal" is that you have been warned numerous times (and blocked) for not citing your additions or changes to articles, yet you continue to do so; and even worse, you do it on BLPs. And whether you regard the subjects of the BLPs as "has beens", they are still BLPs and all the policies still apply. The "big deal" is that you promised to discuss disagreements; instead you plowed through full steam ahead in making problem edits and never discussing. As for problems with other articles, using that as a basis for your problem edits is the weakest argument you could possibly make. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. It will always have bad articles and bad edits. If your standard for editing Wikipedia is to pattern your edits based on those articles, that explains some of your serious editing problems. All of that is "the big deal." Now I'm sure you will, as always, delete my comments because you don't want to acknowledge the problems, and that's your right. But these comments will always be in your talk page history. Sundayclose (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually this particular message from you I accept as valid. Iistal (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Iistal, I'm not sure what you keep asking me. I don't think you can expect other editors to engage in a running conversation with you regarding the block or the edits that led to this block. If you want to ask them something, you can. If they don't respond, maybe they are not interested in answering: they are not obligated to respond. Pretty much the only thing that you can expect an answer to is an unblock request. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Do I need to fill out another template, or is just asking for an unblock here good enough? Iistal (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Iistal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See the above discussion for explanations. Said edits were done in good faith, but better was expected from me since this I had been blocked before. What I've learned from this is to not take any liberties when editing and to follow the guidelines almost literally. Iistal (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=See the above discussion for explanations. Said edits were done in good faith, but better was expected from me since this I had been blocked before. What I've learned from this is to not take any liberties when editing and to follow the guidelines almost literally. [[User:Iistal|Iistal]] ([[User talk:Iistal#top|talk]]) 19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=See the above discussion for explanations. Said edits were done in good faith, but better was expected from me since this I had been blocked before. What I've learned from this is to not take any liberties when editing and to follow the guidelines almost literally. [[User:Iistal|Iistal]] ([[User talk:Iistal#top|talk]]) 19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=See the above discussion for explanations. Said edits were done in good faith, but better was expected from me since this I had been blocked before. What I've learned from this is to not take any liberties when editing and to follow the guidelines almost literally. [[User:Iistal|Iistal]] ([[User talk:Iistal#top|talk]]) 19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Considering your failure to learn from your first block, are you willing to accept a topic ban on BLPs for whatever period an unblocking admin decides is appropriate, which was suggested by the admin who blocked you twice? Sundayclose (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That would be better than nothing. Iistal (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to consider unblocking but only with a ban from making any edit which relates to a living person and, Iistal, I'd need you to very clearly (and succinctly) outline what the problem has been with your editing (that is, explain to me why you have been blocked). @C.Fred:. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Always being of the opinion that I'm in the right, and for that reason:

• Not citing every add/change I made to content.
• Reverting back when my edits were reverted.
• Disregarding comments on my talk page when I felt the argument is senseless.
• Continuing to edit in good faith even after being reprimanded and explained to that sources are needed for most content additions no matter how simple.

Iistal (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So are you willing to accept the ban I suggested? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Is it permanent, and what would determine lifting the ban? Iistal (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it would be permanent, and you would need to appeal it either to myself or to WP:AN after at least six months of policy compliant editing in other areas. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Rather than permanent, I would call it indefinite: there is no defined time after which it will expire. Instead, you can petition to Callanecc or AN to have the ban lifted. However, you want to be able to show a solid track record—at least six months—of good editing in other areas before making the request. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There aren't many non-BLP (meaning only dead people?) articles I can think of to edit. But, as I said, better than nothing so consider it an acceptance. Iistal (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You can edit any article which isn't about a living person as well, you only need to avoid living people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)