User talk:Willwill0415: Difference between revisions

Quick tip, but it seems like you might be adding your signature manually. If you type ~~~~ at the end of your talk page comments, the signature and timestamp will be added automatically. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thx, I'm just forgetting to add it sometimes, I was using it Willwill0415 (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BRD for how we typically edit pages. You boldly changed the content of the page, Dave Dial and I both reverted it in various ways—at this point we need to discuss the changes before just adding them back. Continuing to re-add the changes without establishing consensus on the talk page may result in administrative action being taken, as it's extremely disruptive to the editing process. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misvoted here. I think you mean to vote Strong Support, but accidentally voted Strong Oppose. Those supporting the move to Incel are saying that the topic about Involuntary celibacy currently written is about the fringe subculture not the historic concept. The topic stored in my sandbox is closer to the actual academic topic. The current version only talks about the recent fringe group. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the topic about Involuntary celibacy currently written is about the fringe subculture not the historic concept" I agree. Will the involuntary celibacy page stay up, or where will there be a page for the actual academic topic if this page is moved? Also, "incel" is just short for involuntary celibate. Making an article called "incel" all about blackpill culture will continue to falsely assume that all communities that use the term "incel" follow blackpill ideology (or "fringe subculture"). Willwill0415 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that those who identify as incels follow the blackpill ideology. Frankly I think even a redirect to Incel from involuntary celibacy is inappropriate. In answer to you question you can find the history here, so probably no. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It does appear that those who identify as incels follow the blackpill ideology" Not on Alana's old board and it's successors, not on love-shy.net (the oldest incel forum still up), not on Facebook. So if the page is moved, the academic topic won't be on Wikipedia? In that case I keep my strong oppose. Willwill0415 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willwill0415! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You are new here, so you might not be aware of the "three revert rule" which limits the number of times you can revert someone else's actions. WP:3RR Violating it can get you banned or restricted. Please be aware of it when reverting other people's edits on "Involutary Celebacy" Marteau (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit you made to Incel with the summary incels.me publicly available internal demographic research shows incels on the site are about half non-white, the SPLC has turned into a liberal feminist political lobby organization too biased for the intro of any article: both the incels.me study and the SPLC study have been discussed at length on Talk:Incel. The incels.me link is nowhere near a reliable source, and there has not been consensus at either Talk:Incel or WP:RSN that the SPLC is unacceptable as a source, as you claim. Please do not try to use these sources in the article without further discussion.

It would be useful if you tried to discuss some of your changes at the talk page, since your edits are removing/replacing large amounts of cited content. At the very least, do not re-add your changes when asked to discuss on the talk page; it's against policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People removed large amounts of my cited content without going to the talk page to reiterate something they've already gone to the talk page before about, but I never complained about it because some people seem immune to these rules. Also, brought up some stuff that hasn't been talked about before on the talk page, you put in a response to it. Just putting it here for record. Willwill0415 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best case scenario is that it will be closed quickly. I'd suggest withdrawing it before it attracts too much attention. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Swarm ♠ 20:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Hi Willwill0415, the recent arbitration case request has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from articles and discussions related to gender-related movements, controversies and disputes

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing at Incel, its talkpage, and related discussions, and for not absorbing the feedback you have received in related wikispace disussions

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Abecedare (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• The topic-area covered by the ban is broadly construed and will, for example, include edits to Toronto van attack. Please ask me or another uninvolved admin if you are not sure if a particular article/discussion would be covered by the ban.
• I believe that the disruption that led to this topic-ban was not intentional but rather a result of your strong feelings about the subject and inexperience with editing wikipedia. Therefore, if after you have edited other topics constructively and become more familiar with wikipedia's content and conduct policies, and with appropriate use of dispute-resolution processes, you are interested in having the topic-ban lifted, I could support it (say, after a minimum of six months). However, in the meantime your contributions in this already treacherous area is not, IMO, in the best interest of the project or the project-members developing and maintaining related articles. Abecedare (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willwill0415, I see that you are continuing to argue the point over at ANI. You and I have interacted a couple of times at the Incel talk page: we haven't agreed with each other, but you've always been civil and I believe you're acting in good faith. I'm here to offer you a friendly piece of advice, which you are welcome to ignore if you want, naturally. You've been topic banned from this whole area, including both articles and discussions about it. I'm not personally clear on whether the ban extends to the ANI thread, but even if it doesn't, you are not going to get anywhere by continuing with this. Take it on the chin, and walk away before you get indefinitely blocked. There are plenty of other areas you could work on, like the economics stuff - get stuck into that for a while and forget about the argument. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made an arbcom case cuz I'm a newbie who didn't know how dispute resoluton works. I joined wikipedia because I noticed that an article was bad (the incel article), but In the (failed) process of trying to improve an article, I learned how wikipedia works more, and have contributed to Modern Monetary Theory related pages as well. Then I went to the ANI board cuz I was told to after the Arbcom case was declined for not going to ANI. Then I was told that was bad conduct. Then I got topic banned, and replied again on the ANI board. To use sending me back to the ANI board as a way to ban me from dispute resolution is kinda messed up. Not to you personally, but from the directions I've got from other people following the incel topic. I appreciate your civility, and I realize I need to back away on the ANI board, as the consensus there is against me, the only other option for me is to go back to Arbcom, which I might do one more time before giving up on what I and other registered editors perceive to be an abuse of adminship encouraged by a collection of people who re-created an article despite deltion and salt by broad wiki consensus. Haven't decided. Willwill0415 (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were told to go to ANI because that's the first port of call in this kind of dispute. Having now been through that process, I guess you could go back to Arbcom, but I'd urge you not to - the long and the short of it is that the consensus of the community is against your interpretation of the events, and I honestly expect that Arbcom will see it the same way. It's your call, but I think your best option is just to call it a day on this whole thing and work on the Modern Monetary Theory stuff. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Willwill0415: To be clear, I wouldn't count your continued participation in the ANI thread that pre-existed your topic-ban, as a violation of that topic ban since that would be unfair to you. Similarly, per WP:BANEX, any appeals of the topic-ban would not count as a violation of the ban either. That said, Girth's advice is sound and I second it wholeheartedly; permissible ≠ advisable. Abecedare (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As a general point in dispute resolution, going to ArbCom is the final step. One has to have exhausted all avenues of dispute resolution before going there. This line WP:DR is good reading to get an idea on how DR works. That's not to say you should be looking at trying to revisit the issue at the topic you have been banned from, and don't raise that as a point if you wish to discuss DR further as that would be a violation of the Tban. If you have generic questions related to dispute resolution you can certainly ask and I'm sure someone, including myself, will be able to answer it. Blackmane (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Willwill0415, I saw that you have been making some edits to Bill Mitchell. I think this is a really positive step, and from what I can see the edits are useful and well-sourced, so good job on that. If you'll put up with a little more advice (and please do tell me to get lost if you like), I think that there are ways that you could make your editing more efficient.

The paragraph you edited started out as a single sentence, and you made it into a better, more informative, two-sentence paragraph. However, you made ten separate edits to add this sentence. Working like that can make it difficult for others to review the history. You seem to be someone who likes to tinker with prose to get it just right - I'm the same, I often redraft things several times before I'm happy. There are two ways to avoid cluttering up the page history as you do this:

• You can use the 'Show preview' button before hitting 'publish changes'. This lets you see how the edit will look in mainspace, and decide whether you're happy.
• Alternatively, you can copy the text from the article into your sandbox, and play with it in there until you're content that it's right. Then you can copy and paste it into mainspace in one fell edit. I usually use this approach if I'm making substantial edits, and I might take several days tinkering with it until I'm happy.

I hope this is helpful, and that you don't mind me sticking my nose in. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I didn't know about sandboxWillwill0415 (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sandbox is pretty handy - it behaves just like a regular page, you can 'publish changes' in there and see how things look, make sure refs are showing up correctly etc., plus you can leave stuff there to come back to later. You can actually set up multiple sandbox pages, so you can be working on text for different articles simultaneously. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are topic-banned from all gender-related articles - this edit is in violation of that, and is also inflammatory. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior will almost certainly result in an indefinite block.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warren Mosler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Mitchell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Gab (social network), you may be blocked from editing.

Tsumikiria (T/C) 09:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please dont talk like you are an admin. my post accused others of not being NPOVWillwill0415 (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Gab (social network). Tsumikiria (T/C) 19:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gab (social network) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tell the other person edit warring me, im within 3RR and more inside consensus than the other personWillwill0415 (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ivmbox |2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg |imagesize=50px |1=The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic banned from post-1932 American Politics for 6 months

You have been sanctioned for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, edit-warring and POV pushing

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. Since you are blocked for edit-warring for a month you should use this talkpage to post such an appeal while the block lasts. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]