User talk:JordanGero: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
JordanGero (talk | contribs) |
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing. (TW) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== |
== March 2017 == |
||
| ⚫ | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon]] You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|indefinitely]]''' from editing for doing exactly what you were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#User_talk_page_harassment_after_warning_by_JordanGero warned] not to. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[WP:Appealing a block|request an unblock]] by first reading the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a cup</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 09:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> |
||
[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, and [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome to Wikipedia]]. You appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]] with one or more editors according to your reverts at [[:European colonization of the Americas]]. Although repeatedly [[Help:Reverting|reverting or undoing]] another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|normal editing process]], and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] on the [[:Talk:European colonization of the Americas|talk page]]. |
|||
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|editing privileges]]. 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 [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|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 [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|loss of editing privileges]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 05:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:I've created a talk page for the issue at hand. If the other editor ([[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]]) reverts my edits again, that will be in contravention to the 3RR rule. [[User:JordanGero|JordanGero]] ([[User talk:JordanGero#top|talk]]) 05:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/JordanGero|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to [[:Talk:European colonization of the Americas]], it is recommended that you use the [[Help:Show preview|preview]] button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces [[Help:Edit conflict|edit conflict]]s, and prevents clogging up [[Special:Recentchanges|recent changes]] and the [[Help:Page history|page history]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-preview --> [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 23:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::All right, thank you for the suggestion. I'll preview my posts more often before saving them. [[User:JordanGero|JordanGero]] ([[User talk:JordanGero#top|talk]]) 04:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==RFC== |
|||
I returned the rfc to its original wording and title. You cannot change the question posed after it has been answered by other editors. If necessary you can either propose a change of wording or pose a new rfc with a different wording. My rfc is not about the wording about the specific paragraph but about the general appropriateness of the word seize for describing conquest and colonization in the Americas. In specific contexts other words may be preferale, what I wish to establish is the general appropriateness, i.e. that the word is not inherently loaded or contrary to the facts of the colonial process. If an rfc is needed in regards to the paragraph in question, then that will be a subsequent question. Personally I dont feel strongly that the word seize needs to be used in that case, in fact I would probably remove the sentence altogether if I were writing that section myself.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 07:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::No, your original wording in the Rfc is wildly biased to your position. This is not ok, and the rest of your defense is utterly irrelevant to the fact that it was wildly biased. I've reverted it, and if you change it again, I will revert it. If you want to start a separate Rfc for the talk page issue, be my guest. Most or all of the editors who have responded have done so with my updated version of the Rfc question, and yes I can change the question to better reflect the matter at hand. If you wish to dispute what I changed it to, then that is a separate argument altogether, but I believe it is fair as it is, especially given that most people are siding with your position anyway. [[User:JordanGero|JordanGero]] ([[User talk:JordanGero#top|talk]]) 07:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you edit my posts again, or again change the ongoing rfc without prior consensus, I will report you to administrators notice board. Your change makes the Rfc about an entirely different question than the one intended. And no, most editors answered my wording not yours (which can be seen in the fact that they answer "no", which is not a meaningful answer to your question). See the policy on how to respond to rfcs [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Suggestions_for_responding|here]] and the [[WP:TPO|talkpage guidelines here]].[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 09:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::Maunus is correct. You can't go around changing text written by others. And you've made it clear you will edit war to keep your version, a very bad idea. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::"Can't go around changing text written by others." That is exactly what editing on Wikipedia does, for the most part: changes text written by others. In this context, it is the form of the Rfc comment, and given the utter bias with which the user [[User:Maunus|·maunus]] presented it originally, I've taken the liberty of lessening said bias. And [[User:Maunus|·maunus]], you completely misunderstood what the dispute was about to begin with; you jumped in the middle of the discussion between me and Rjensen. You version is entirely inaccurate and slanted towards your position. And no, most users answered the question after I had changed it, not before. The only one who did answer it before it was changed was the first editor to answer it, and he/she answered it with a "no" and an explanation, which invalidates your implication that your version would not have engendered such a response. Literally not one thing you said, as with your original version of the Rfc, is correct. [[User:JordanGero|JordanGero]] ([[User talk:JordanGero#top|talk]]) 17:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Having been advised by User:Dougweller that editwarring to violate the talkpage guidelines and the RfC guidelines is a bad idea, you nonetheless continued to do so. I have no mentioned your behavior at administrators noticeboard.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 18:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::It does not matter whether the original wording of the RFC is wildly biased. Once an RFC has been posted, the answers are to the question as originally posted. Changing the wording of the RFC (even if making it more appropriate in the abstract) causes the answers to be responses to a different question than was asked. The fact that it also confuses the bots that maintain RFCs is secondary. What is primary is that changing the wording of an RFC causes the responses to the RFC to be meaningless, as responses to a changing question. You are permitted to post a separate RFC, or to explain in the discussion what question you think should have been asked. You have so far gotten off easy in that you have been warned and not blocked. Do not ever change the question of an RFC, even if the original RFC is completely stupid (which it isn't). Completely stupid RFCs can be closed as stupid. Changing RFCs cannot be reasonably closed. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Understood. Part of my point was that, unlike what has been claimed above, the majority of editors responded under my version of the Rfc question, so the survey results are largely already relative to that. [[User:JordanGero|JordanGero]] ([[User talk:JordanGero#top|talk]]) 18:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Reddd|Red]] vs [[Blue]] editors == |
|||
Good question. All I can give you is my somewhat jaundiced perspective. Here is a canned note that i sometimes send to editors that I think are new.<br> |
|||
:If you put something, anything, on your user page then your user name will change into a [[blue link]] rather than being the [[red one]] that it is now. This suggests to others, or at least to me, that you are not the dead end that red links suggest and that perhaps you are even a serious editor who intends to stay around. The "User Page" tab at the top left of this page will change color too. Consider it, Einar aka <br> |
|||
This came about because sometimes when I was editing at somewhat controversial articles, (something I don't do all that much of) i.e.. ones about race, the men's movement and that sort of thing, a bunch of [[red linked]] editors would all show up at the same time, well versed in wikilawyering and often pushing what i perceived to be an agenda and I just get sort of an attitude about those sorts of editors. They are typically one or two issue editors and mostly go away after not too long. I am happy assuming good intentions until my gut says otherwise. I am not sure if other editors make these same distinctions as I am not in any sort of group that talks about this sort of stuff. So if you see this same [[reddd|red]] vs [[blue]] editors elsewhere you might ask the same question. Does this help? [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 21:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Redlinked editors may often be editors who are recently registered and did not create their userpage yet. Some editors however never make their userpages and continue to be redlinked forever. Hence, in practice, not much information can be extrapolated from the color of an editors name.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 22:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::All right, that's quite informative, and it confirms part of my own sentiments regarding red vs. blue editors (i.e., the latter are more likely to have been on Wikipedia longer, less likely to be a single-purpose editor, etc.), though as [[User:Maunus|·maunus]] points out, that's not necessarily the case. Thank you. [[User:JordanGero|JordanGero]] ([[User talk:JordanGero#top|talk]]) 22:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Which template to welcome you? == |
|||
I read that your dispute with another user is resolved already at ANI. We are sorry that we didn't give you a proper welcome earlier when you arrived. I know that [[Wikipedia]] [[Criticism of Wikipedia|has.... issues]] (linked intentionally ;-) ). Nevertheless, I think you deserve a better welcome. I don't know which template I must give you appropriately: {{tlu|User:DangerousPanda/welcomecivil}} or {{tls|Welcomelaws}}. Pick one from [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates]], and I'll give it to you right away. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 06:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Your passive aggressiveness is not appreciated, and your above post on my talk page was, and continues to be, utterly unnecessary. I have been on Wikipedia for quite some time, therefore do not require any "welcoming message". Secondly, as I explained to {{U|Ad Orientem}} in the section above, a party charging harassment against another whom they are actively engaging, especially when it has been made clear to that party that the conversation will terminate when they cease such active engagement, is a difficult argument to sell, to say the least. Thirdly, the dispute in issue is already being addressed in the Administrator's noticeboard/ incidents page. Fourthly, if you had the requisite impartiality on the matter, you would not be implying support for a user ({{U|GregJackP}}) who has made clearly racist statements (the timing of your recent post on his talk page, inviting him to tutor law courses at Wikiversity, seems rather odd in light of this). You can sympathize with racist pricks all you like, but try to keep your snarky jabs off my talk page and focus your energies towards more productive ends, capeesh? I'm so glad we could understand each other. Now kindly pick from the following two options: 1) cease posting passive aggressive inanities on my talk page; or 2) continue posting and find yourself the subject of a Administrator's incident report. Strive on with diligence. ;-). [[User:JordanGero|JordanGero]] ([[User talk:JordanGero#top|talk]]) 19:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== February 2017 == |
|||
| ⚫ | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola |
||
<!-- Template:uw-aoablock --> |
|||
:Your response to George Ho's obviously good faith post is absolutely unacceptable. I suggest you moderate the tone with which you communicate with your fellow editors. See [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 19:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::No, my response was not at all "unacceptable": he made a passive aggressive comment about me picking a welcoming message about civility, a completely unnecessary entry, given that the issue was already resolved. You have no good reason to block me- nothing in my response rose to the level warranting a block. You have abused your authority as administrator, and your decision will be appealed. [[User:JordanGero|JordanGero]] ([[User talk:JordanGero#top|talk]]) 20:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|reason=As explained in my response directly above, my response to George Ho's message does not warrant a block. First, his message was not in good faith: it was a passive aggressive quip, asking me to pick between two chastising templates- '''I had every right to express my displeasure against George Ho on my talk page, and my expression of that displeasure does not rise to the level of abuse or incivility warranting a block'''. Second, the block is unwarranted because I am not making any disruptive edits, have shown no intent to make disruptive edits, and the underlying issue on the Administrator's incidents/noticeboard page has been resolved without action against me. I request an unblock, and further allege that {{U|Ad Orientem}} has abused his authority as administrator by issuing this block against me. [[User:JordanGero|JordanGero]] ([[User talk:JordanGero#top|talk]]) 20:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)|decline=Nope. If this is how you want to act on Wikipedia, you're going to end up with a lot more than a one day block. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 ]]</small></sup> 21:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)}} |
|||
::Again, this is an unwarranted block. {{U|Ad Orientem}} has abused his/her authority as administrator in issuing it. My expression of displeasure against George Ho's passive aggressive and unnecessary quip on my page does not rise to a level of a block (it was directed at the content of his message, and any statement towards him personally was incidental and derivative of the critique of that content). A block is meant to prevent disruptive editing, and that is not an issue here. Moreover, the underlying incident on the Administrator's incident/noticeboard has been resolved. This block is unjustified and should be overturned. You're also well out of line threatening me with further action, given that my response to George Ho was well within bounds. In retrospect, and quite ironically, I'm actually beginning to sympathize with {{U|GregJackP}}'s talk page intro statement about sectarian administrator's who abuse their positions of power. No wonder he retired. My kingdom for an impartial court. [[User:JordanGero|JordanGero]] ([[User talk:JordanGero#top|talk]]) 21:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours''' for [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personally attacking other editors]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[WP:Appealing a block|request an unblock]] by first reading the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. [[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 13:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)</div> |
|||
<!-- Template:uw-aoablock --> |
|||
:Note: Apparently you did not get the message after your last post which resulted in a 24hr block so you went off and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:George_Ho&diff=767650665&oldid=767251182 posted substantially the same attacks and bad faith accusations] on their talk page. Since you evidently do not understand that this kind of post is unacceptable let me spell it our for you in crystal clear language so there is no future misunderstanding. Accusing someone who was only trying to help of bad faith in their, perhaps ill worded, but obviously good faith offer is not OK. Further accusing them of some kind of partisan affinity for racist editors is offensive and a clear violation of both AGF and CIVIL. And I must say that for someone who has pointed out that they have been around for a while, I am shocked you do not grasp the basic rules of civil intercourse around here. Now I STRONGLY advise you to [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]] because if you attack another editor in the manner you have been demonstrating again you will be facing a long term block. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 14:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::P.S. I am starting to get reports that this is not an isolated incident and there may be other editors who have been on the receiving end of your acidic posts. I don't know what to say to this other than to reiterate that you need to moderate the manner in which you communicate with other editors or this is not going to end well. And again, so there is no doubt, this is absolutely a specie of [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]] and must stop. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 14:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Apparently, you're continuing to abuse your authority as administrator by doling out unwarranted and unjustified blocks, this time for a period substantially longer than the first. You offer no valid justification for the act: as I explained in my previous contest of the first block you issued me this month, my response to George Ho did not rise to the level of necessitating a block. He posted a very obvious, unneeded, and passive aggressive quip on my talk page, asking me to "pick" between two templates about incivility, and that as soon as I did so, he would give it to me right away; on top of that, after it had been made clear to him (through the Administrator's incidents/noticeboard) that the other user (GregJackP) had made blatantly racist statements against me, he posts on GregJackP's talk page a suggestion for him to tutor at the Wikiversity Law School. |
|||
:::You have NO argument here, Ad Orientem: my accusations against George Ho were absolutely not in bad faith: he posted a totally unnecessary passive aggressive jab on my talk page, and then suggested that someone with a racist perspective tutor at the Wikiversity Law School. Who the hell do you think you are? On what planet do you think that making bare conclusory assertions against me, assertions which are directly contradicted by the facts, is justification enough for your castigation and block against me? In case you're not understanding what I am saying, let me spell it "our" for you in crystal clear language so there is no future misunderstanding: George Ho posted an uncivil message on my talk page, and then encouraged someone who had made racist proclamations to tutor at the Wikiversity Law School. My response to him was perfectly warranted and did not rise to the level of a block. When one encourages a known racist to exert influence on the Wikimedia community, you better believe that I am going to CALL THEM OUT ON THAT, GOT THAT? Explain to me what is "shocking" to you about. Please explain that to me. You know, for all the idiocy GregJackP spewed, he was damn right about one thing: you and your cronies on here are running this site like its your own personal playground- you've made this a domain for your ego under color of authority, and you have the goddamn GALL to lecture me about civil intercourse? Beautiful work, Ad Orientem. My only wish is that this had been a public debate where I would have reduced your pitiful argumentative facade to rubble, as opposed to being powerless to stop you from hiding behind your administrative authority. [[User:JordanGero|JordanGero]] ([[User talk:JordanGero#top|talk]]) 20:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::P.S. No, my posts are not a form of disruptive editing: I responded to George Ho's uncivil posts on my talk page, and Softlavender's accusations that I am 'ranting' are equally fallacious. Apparently, making an assertive stand in response to something equates to "ranting". Allow me to modify the dictionary definition of the word "rant" while I'm at it to fit this position. Truly wonderful work, Ad Orientem. Enjoy your vacation- I'm sure you've earned it. [[User:JordanGero|JordanGero]] ([[User talk:JordanGero#top|talk]]) 20:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 09:23, 1 March 2017
March 2017
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)