User talk:Arianewiki1/Archive 2018

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

List of unsolved problems in physics (Talkpage)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please

Learn the facts before trying to start edit wars. HappyWaldo (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@HappyWaldo: Please. Make sure the cite states/ supports statements. It doesn't. Australian rules football in Scotland also concurs this too. Two editors already now disagree. Me and 101.179.204.107. Stop gatekeeping. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement : Australian rules football was played overseas as early as the 1880s when teams from English and Scottish universities competed in London. <Prentis, Malcolm David. The Scots in Australia. UNSW Press, 2008. ISBN 9781921410215, p. 261.> does not cite Trove here.[1] Also it was not: " from English and Scottish universities" which is not factual. pleas show this Prentis book wording. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyWaldo (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in physics (Talkpage) II

Hi, Can you explain your revert please? Are there any planets beyond Neptune? What is the explanation for the elongated orbits of a group of Kuiper belt objects? is a problem of astronomy, and I added that in the Astronomy section. Thanks, Yann (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Thanks. An unsolved problem is being unable to explain an observation of an existing thing or phenomena. Moreover, there are other astronomical reasons for perturbations not some presumed missing planet. It is marginally a problem in astronomy, but we are not even sure if it requires changes in theory. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the elongated orbits are an existing phenomena, and an unsolved problem. We currently don't know what causes them. It may or may not be caused by a planet. It may not require a change in theory, but that's also the case of other problems mentioned in this page. "Marginally" is debatable, and it is not a reason not to add this to the list. It is certainly a bigger issue that the "Nature of KIC 8462852", the "Nature of Wow! signal", or the Pioneer anomaly, which was listed here until it was solved. If it is caused by a planet, it would be a major discovery. Should we add that with the "Kuiper cliff" problem? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't have any other arguments for reverting me? That's a bit short... Yann (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Sorry. Dealing with other fires. I still don't see how something that may or may not be known becomes a problem in physics. The issue must be more a problem with the laws of physics not a just "problem of physics". I.e A fifth force or dark matter, etc. Yours does not really qualify. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

How is this issue different than the the Kuiper cliff, or the Wow! signal, or the nature of KIC 8462852, all mentioned above in the same section? These are not problems with the laws of physics. Or the Pioneer anomaly, which was in this section until 2012? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Look. Some good points, but IMO none of these examples qualify. (I've removed them as current physics can explain without the need for any new theory or changing the laws of physics that we currently accept.)

As with: "Are there any planets beyond Neptune?" Possibly, but it is a failure finding it, not a problem with physics or with known physics. For: "What is the explanation for the elongated orbits of a group of Kuiper belt objects?" Who knows / it is like unknowable. But preexisting theory of gravitation and perturbation is likely without any need of new physics. Nearby approaches of stars to the Sun are known to probable perturbed comet's orbits.

Not knowing something is not a problem with our understanding of physics. Many things are yet to be discovered but that is not the fault with theory. The first article statement: "Some of the major unsolved problems in physics are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result." These questions simply fail the acid test.

Secondly "The others are experimental, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail." Again there is no means of testing it – other than a time machine –– as our time to investigate is too short against the age of the Solar System. However, using gravitation and perturbation theory we can predict the position of the planets etc. to fair accuracy without needed any new physics to calculate it. If we do discover a new planet, the existence means we can continue to use the same law of physics to improve or model and predictions. (If dark matter exists, then this is a new influence on planetary motion, but that is a physics problem (as earlier stated in the article), but that means all astronomical explanations from small bodies to galaxies, leaving a huge article of examples.

However, and importantly, this does not change Newtonian or relativistic gravitation and perturbation theory. Nothing new is required at our present state of scientific knowledge.

I might be wrong, but you will need consensus to add these. There are many mechanisms such as an Rfc if you feel strongly about it, but you'll might have troubles getting a result in favour of inclusion. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"Or the Pioneer anomaly, which was in this section until 2012?" This s "solved", as stated at the bottom of the page. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's clearer, and at least consistent. Then what about the Kuiper cliff? To me, this is a similar issue as the elongated orbits of Kuiper belt objects. Should that be removed too? Is there somewhere else a list of unsolved issues of astronomy and astrophysics (at least the important ones)?

Also you removed line breaks and a reference, which I added back. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Academic peer review

Hi Ariane, I noticed that you and Mu301 (also noted in their talkpage) are the main writers of Alpha centauri page. Would you two be interested in submitting the article for academic peer review via the WikiJournal of Science? It appears that a while back it was submitted to to an early version of the journal (then called "Second Journal of Science") though it has changes a lot since then. See articles in prep for the first issue here & further info here. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked you for edit warring material containing BLP violations into the Clementine Ford (writer) article. I note in particular that:

in an earlier discussion on the talk page you were clearly aware of several editors had judged that a shorter and less problematic version of this material violated WP:BLP
the material you added is written in a hostile way towards the subject, and is referenced to obviously totally unreliable sources such as Mark Latham's website and the Daily Mail.
When called on this edit warring, you disruptively edited the article to remove other material (an obvious WP:POINT violation).

~~In light of this serious misconduct, per WP:NEWBLPBAN you are now banned from editing the Clementine Ford (writer) article for one year from today.~~ Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ban struck per the below, as it was premature without the warning first. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arianewiki1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't understand the reasoning here. The earlier edit and discussion applied only to the controversy of the "Killing men" comment. Whilst the discussion had been debated as stated, this more recent action changes it. I.e. Expanded from original WP:BLP1E. This edit is clearly relevant and my edit was objective here.[2] stating the comment " Added back the recent problems on "kill men" comment, which is still on going and relevant." I only restored a previous version then added the new additional comments and sources. (I still disagree with the sources not being, applicable. e.g. [1] is surely a suitable cite.) :*If I'm going to be blamed, it can be only this text: "Later in May 2018, a petition by 14,000 individuals caused Ford to be removed as a speaker from a forum on domestic violence by the mental health organisation, Lifeline, in response to these remarks.[2][3]. The Dailymail here only confirms that 2GB statement. (The earlier part explains the context., and as WP:SELFPUB says "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;") :*I also said: "Some commentators have expressed strong views for and against Ford's controversial strong feminist platform on this issue."[4][5] The first reference supports the "strong views", the first disagrees with the action the second agrees with it. It supports the statement. In view of this, perhaps the Dailymail is questionable, but the 2GB on is legitimate. As for the removal of the text, I've followed WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. The SMH (and the Sunday Mail) is a primary source (also the woman's employer) and should not be used. I.e. [3]. I said so here.[4] Also Newmatilda.com [5] fails WP:BLP and WP:BLPSPS too. (Even the first reverting editor agrees.[6].) The deletions were not WP:POINT but removed for the same reasons as the new text in question. This comment is here [7] and here. I honestly believe I've acting in WP:GF here and the questioned added text is from a WP:NPOV and presents the facts in a balanced and reasonable way. As for the deletions, the 2014 and 2016 are far from balance and present an unfavorable or biassed POV. As said in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style#Balance "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." I think I did that, and have shown in response here no WP:BLP violations. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Also, see below for a DS alert. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

References

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Arianewiki1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do understand reason the block and why caution must be strictly adhered to against biographies of living people, but what I don't understand the need for such a savage/draconian measures. It is difficult to comprehend how a discussion on the talkpage starting in January 2018, where one editor disagrees, two basically agree, and one written in March seems unsure. I have not slandered nor attacked the person in the article or tried to enforce my opinion at all. The revert made by User:Aircorn merely states "Still the same problems"[8] in the edit summary. *You say "in an earlier discussion on the talk page you were clearly aware of several editors had judged that a shorter and less problematic version of this material violated WP:BLP." But the Talkpage section Killing men comment this is only stated by The Drover's Wife Her only words are: "The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for BLP articles, nor are opinion pieces acceptable sources." However, the 2GB media site says: "Hardline feminist Clementine Ford has had her speech for a charity fundraiser cancelled after almost 14,000 people signed a petition against her appearance. Suicide prevention group Lifeline has canned a domestic violence forum featuring the controversial feminist. It comes as the aftermath of a Tweet the writer sent out saying, “Kill all men” (see below) in 2015. When Ford was announced as a speaker for the event, her previous Tweets became the subject of scrutiny as many questioned how Lifeline could give Ford a platform considering how many men with mental health issues rely on the service." It even gives a copy of the tweet in question. Frankly, I was NOT aware "in an earlier discussion on the talk page you were clearly aware of several editors had judged that a shorter and less problematic version of this material violated WP:BLP, because evidence above says otherwise. I had not noticed, but I now see is the number of people who have tried to add this subject to the article since late 2017. Had I realised this had such a history I would not had editing as aggressively as I did. *As for the material you added is written in a hostile way towards the subject,... I actually disagree. At a book signing for her book Fight Like a Girl, Ford sparked an ongoing controversy when she signed her book and added "Have you killed any men today, and if not, why not"?[19][20][21] Ford defended her comment as "a sardonic joke written in a friend and fellow feminist's copy of my book". Please supply evidence this is hostile. * For your recent reasons for the block, I was not aware of WP:NEWBLPBAN sanctions, especially as I rarely edit biographical based pages. (One I have edited is Hetty Johnston, and there has been no WP:BLP issues there.) I have now read the "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions" below it and the Arbitration enforcement log on Editing of Biographies of Living Persons, and find that my edits are far from any kind of incivility, bad faith, trolling or harassment. * Clearly, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and instead, if the sanction is lifted, to likely begin an WP:RfC to finally fix the content dispute to make it a useful contribution. My only motivation with the original edit was to add the current activities, but have little interest making further edits of this particular page, and prefer to edit pages mostly on astronomy and related subjects. I'll happily avoid this page in the future. Arianewiki1 (talk) 1:54 am, 16 May 2018, last Wednesday (5 days ago) (UTC+1)

Accept reason:

Block has expired SilkTork (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: @TonyBallioni: @Kuru: Please respond to my second unblock request. I have been looking at the rules of this in how you have imposed this block, and believe you've misinterpreted the facts and have been over zealous in applying it. There was not warning of the fact.

I accept the need to be careful when presenting on biographies of living people, especially when the edits could be in the form of liable. These discretionary sanctions were mostly introduced to respond to liable (This is not the case here.) Worst the added text contains no incivility, bad faith, trolling or harassment. Nor was it hostile. The issue appears only based on the interpretation of the reliability of the sources.

I am also concerned with this exchange [9] In the saying "keeping an eye out at that article" then reply "No worries at all." Why would you do that? Aircorn when making the first two reverts did them within 4 minutes[10] and the second revert in 38 seconds (the time to write "Take it to the talk page. Section already started there.")[11] Yet oddly there was also 50 days (25th March to 15th May) between the last version of the article and my edit. It looks like deliberate attempts to make sure the aberrant text cannot be added.

Worse still. there has been multiple attempts to add this material to the article, and each time it has been challenged and reverted. I note your own excuse in this edit (same disputed text) where you said "clearly no support to include this, and edit warring negative BLP material referenced to an unreliable source over several weeks is not acceptable)"[12]

Yet my new comments satisfies your above excuse, e.g. ""Still the same problems." is not a excuse. Argument is balanced and expresses an alternate view. New information nulls the previous discussion."[13] and "Added back the recent problems on "kill men" comment, which is still on going and relevant"[14]

But this statement Actually, this seems to be an editor conduct issue, and I'll respond accordingly. [15]

All this contradicts the reason for the block "in an earlier discussion on the talk page you were clearly aware of several editors had judged that a shorter and less problematic version of this material violated WP:BLP" The talkpage nor the edit history actually supports that.

After this block is lifted, I see no choice but to start a questioning WP:ANI on this, especially after doing this.[16]+[17]

In the end my apologies for the likely edit warring, but you've made several incorrect assumptions that cannot be verified.

Lastly. TonyBallioni has modified my first unblock request, and has removed its structure to has change its context.[18] e.g. From this[19] to this[20]. This plainly violates modifying text on user talkpages. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Two things: first, I just copied the decline template provided at the bottom of the unblock request and added a line noting that I was giving you a DS alert. The template sometimes changes the formatting, but all the text is there. Second, admins typically only decline an unblock once, so I won't be addressing this again, as I'm very unlikely to unblock without the consent of the blocking administrator.

Also, as a piece of advice, try to be concise. It will really help you in the future, whether it be with unblock attempts or in the real world. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for the response. It is nearly impossible to be concise in something that is too historically complex to understand. The reasoning by the blocking admin is not clear at all, and whose decisions are clearly contradictory. e.g. [21] The blocking Admin already has a history of protecting this page from multiple users by blocking non-autocomfirmed users, which they don't block, but when an autocomfirmed user adds it, then they do. only an RfC needs to get past the current impasse. I accept much of the block for my mistakes, but the 1 year ban in editing this page to me is unacceptable because I (and others) have presented material that is neutral and seemingly has a majority of support by other users that meets consensus. The wording or sources may be wrong, but there has been no attempt to make it compliant within the rules at all. Is this more about rule violation or just a form of censorship?

In the end, I appreciated the template, but changing context, especially under the stress of an unblock request is not good. I'll take you advice in the possible forthcoming ANI. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

First, no admin is going to reformat the unblock decline template to keep your formatting. There are upwards of 50 people requesting an unblock at any given time and it simply takes too much work.

On the BLP ban, as I mentioned below, I don't think you were aware under arbcom procedures of the BLP sanctions, and Nick-D hasn't logged it after I pinged him, so I am unsure whether or not this applies. If Nick still thinks the ban should apply and that you were aware of the sanctions under the awareness requirements, he would need to log the sanction, and you would be able to appeal it to WP:AN or WP:AE (in this case, I would recommend AE, as it is more streamlined in some ways.) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I've struck the ban, as it wasn't valid without the warning first - thanks for correcting me here. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Thanks for acknowledging the point, especially where I had already said this before User:TonyBalloni did. I.e. Please respond to my second unblock request. I have been looking at the rules of this in how you have imposed this block, and believe you've misinterpreted the facts and have been over zealous in applying it. There was not warning of the fact. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you're asking by pinging me: your wording seems to claim that I have somehow participated in "impos[ing] this block." Are you asking me to explain something or evaluate the unblock request? I don't recall interacting with you before, other than at NGC 6946. Kuru (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kuru: I was requesting your comment after this edit.[22] It is clear you have some historical objective understanding of the issue(s) that might clear up the actual objections here. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In that instance, an editor was edit warring to include poorly sourced information in a WP:BLP ("theblaze", daily mail and a primary source). Looking at the history, there was a clear pattern of utterly inappropriate additions from others over the last three months, some hidden, indicating that this is a controversial BLP and needs meticulous sourcing and a careful editorial balance. I have not had time to evaluate your recent apparent edit warring, but on a quick glace it appears to be problematic enough to warrant action. Kuru (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: @Kuru: I do thank you both and appreciate your useful advice here.

I do agree with the sourcing issue being a problem, but I thought I did address it with a new reliable source (and acknowledge by Nick-D) here.[23] Yet this action was changed when it became some "editor conduct issue."[24]), in which the blocking reason is for violating: "for edit warring material containing BLP violations." Other than several reverts that stop short of 3RR, there are no stated BLP problems (except in the confusing edit history.) Had I just removed all the older problematic sources made by the IP, and used the new acceptable source only, I'd assume the whole problem then disappears. e,g. "At a book signing for her book Fight Like a Girl, Ford sparked an ongoing controversy when she signed her book and added "Have you killed any men today, and if not, why not"? Later in May 2018, a petition by 14,000 individuals caused Ford to be removed as a speaker from a forum on domestic violence by the mental health organisation, Lifeline, in response to these remarks.[23] Some commentators have expressed strong views for and against Ford's controversial strong feminist platform on this issue.[25][26]

Am I correct in this thinking?

Note: I sincerely need help understanding how to comply with the rules here so the material can be accepted. Where is the compromise here?Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

By discussing the matter on the article's talk page and gaining consensus to add it. Any material proposed should be 100% accurate (was there there really "ongoing controversy"?), proportionate to the significance of the issue (is this relevant at all?), neutral (the negative views are being given weight here) and sourced to clearly reliable sources. If you were to post another version at any location which violates WP:BLP, you will be blocked again. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Not posting a warning is irrelevant and using it as an excuse is unjustified. Your own behaviour here is so erratic and the numerous errors in adopted procedures that once this 3-day ban is lifted, I have little choice but to actively pursue ANI / AN regardless of what you do.

I still contend that the block is unjustified based on your own reasoning. e.g.

"in an earlier discussion on the talk page you were clearly aware of several editors had judged that a shorter and less problematic version of this material violated WP:BLP. Reason: The Talkpage did not "judged that a shorter and less problematic version of this material violated WP:BLP." IPs 1.152.108.42 and 2001:8003:54DA:E600:B43A:FD47:86DF:5F0] disagreed, and I did agree with them. Only Aircorn said this but objected to it failing WP:Undue. Again, in the Talkpage section Question over source validity, User:Ryk72 doubted the varsity of the sources. Bilby removed the text based on "It has been over a week with no other opinions offered, so I'll pull it and see how we go." Some 8 months later, I re-added the material, based on the recent actions of Lifeline. Consensus disagrees with you. There was no actual judgement that WP:BLP was violated on the Talkpage here. That is an incorrect statement by you, as it is your opinion.

Also: "the material you added is written in a hostile way towards the subject, and is referenced to obviously totally unreliable sources such as Mark Latham's website and the Daily Mail." Reason. It was not "hostile" (your opinion, actually) , and the so-called '"unreliable source" was supported by a reliable source (2GB site).
"I've struck the ban" Untrue. Yet you haven't removed the 3-day block, and you've now made it nearly impossible for me to argue why that should be lifted too.
The reasons of the block are poorly stated and factually untrue
I have attached a 2nd unblock request. You've ignore it.
Posting an implied or veiled threat like: "If you were to post another version at any location which violates WP:BLP, you will be blocked again." Again. I have not violated WP:BLP on the evidence as you have presented to block me. I question if you understand that complying with BLP is nearly impossible based on interpreting what is relevant or what is or is not a reliable source. (You say the 'The Spectator' or 'DailyMail' is unacceptable, but where in WP:BLP or anywhere in Wikipedia does it says they are? Clearly that is merely a judgement by you.)
"Any material proposed should be 100% accurate (was there there really "ongoing controversy"?), proportionate to the significance of the issue (is this relevant at all?), neutral (the negative views are being given weight here) and sourced to clearly reliable sources" is not true. Your opinion. Really. NO SOURCE CAN BE 100% ACCURATE, and as an admin you should know this! The sheer number of references, quotes and evidence to the facts is overwhelming - even images of the actual handwritten words.
The same point is discussed now being here [25]

I do think the block is still unjustified based on procedure or incorrect assumptions, and the evidence suggest the community need to be notified of inappropriately imposed blocks. The alleged BLP violations you say are clearly not at all self-evident. You've been making opinion judgements without actual consensus or evidence. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I am just responding to say that I have noticed the pings and am aware of the conversation. I think it is pretty clear what my involvement was, but to clarify. I am watching the Clemintine Ford page and saw some edits I considered inappropriate. As such I reverted them. I am happy to discuss further why these edits were inappropriate, but at the article page or an appropriate content notceboard, not at a users talk page. I thanked Nick for watching the page as being an adminstrator is a shit job and he made a call that protected the article. Did he have to block? Not necessarily, but it was one of a few reasonable options. Giving the level of sourcing used I think it was more than valid. If you want to take it to ANI that is your prerogative. Since I have been pinged multiple times I will offer some advice and just say beware the WP:Boomerang. Editors take BLP very seriously around here and you are on the wrong side of it with these edits. I don't really have anything else to add, but if an administrator wants me to clarify anything more then I am happy to. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You haven't help much here, and this kind of response is mostly unacceptable and unhelpful. Why, for instance, say "I have noticed the pings and am aware of the conversation." So who is exactly pinging you? (It wasn't me, because the only place I can post is on my talkpage.) Drawing other's attention to sanctioned Users for collusion, support or influence is not allowed. That is also taken seriously.

Also in the edit summary of the first revert you said "Still the same problems" which means what exactly?" Also saying editors take BLP very seriously around here and you are on the wrong side of it with these edits." maybe true, but abuse in imposing sanctions is equal bad. The accusation is that "...on the talk page you were clearly aware of several editors had judged that a shorter and less problematic version of this material violated WP:BLP" is false, as there is a casual mention to use caution. Response like: "Opinion pieces are not reliable sources" when the article's source is an acceptable reference written by the author herself. Yet the next comeback is "cherry picking a part of it, taking it out of context." In having a second reliable source (2GB) confirm the SMH article and the alleged text is correct. So it is in context, which is why I returned the presumed problematic text. Yet multiple Users and IPs say this added text is relevant and not at all: "unreliable sources for biographies of living people", yet you seem to almost desire that these should not be added. Any normal editor would likely help the IP organise the text so it complies with the WP:BLP, when all that is applied here is a 'honey trap', and the use of any excuse to prevent text being added to the article.

Note: I will be posting a WP:AN not an WP:ANI via an Arbitration enforcement action appeal. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Every time you link my name it pings me. So far it has happened three times. Please stop dong that if you don't want my attention. AIRcorn (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You are not subject to arbitration enforcement at present. You are blocked, and have been warned about the discretionary arbitration sanctions relating to BLP below. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D:Why am I still blocked after the 72 hours expired? It says "Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Arianewiki1". The reason given for Arianewiki1's block is: "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy"." It apparently now expires 8:40 19th. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

TonyBallioni (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D, I declined the unblock, but I placed this because WP:NEWBLPBAN is a discretionary sanction, and Arianewiki1 doesn't appear to be aware of the discretionary sanctions regime (also, if she is aware in a way I can't find, the sanction needs to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2018.)

Arianewiki1, per above, you are now aware that BLPs are a special area of Wikipedia, and that administrators are authorized to use special behavioral rules to curtail disruption there. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries

As H:FIES makes clear, it is not a requirement to provide edit summaries. That section notes that it can increase the risk of edits being reverted if their purpose is unclear, but does not authorise this. The edits you reverted [26] [27] appear to have been clear in purpose, and referenced to a good source. You will be blocked if this harassment continues. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Please stop deliberately targeting me, as much of this looks like retribution and can also be deemed harassment. The edit summaries are necessary part of editing, and the additions ARE unclear.. Evidence here[28] clearly shows avoidance of this requirement, where the majority of edits do not have edit summaries. When adding multiple changes shows it to be indicative of such behaviour. I've tried to kindly entice better editing, and the response to here[29] is far from harassment. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Group of physicists would like to help update Alpha centauri

Hi! A set of astronomers and physicists have offered to help update the Alpha centauri article. Some got together at the EWASS2018 conference, and the others are from NASA Ames. Would you be interested in being involved? After the update, I'm also encouraging them to submit it for both GA review, and for external academic review by WikiJSci. I'll make a post on the Alpha centauri talk page so that there's a record there too. None of them have previously edited Wikipedia (to my knowledge) so they may also need assistance with formatting etc (though I'll also watch the page to help out). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You have previously been sanctioned for your editing of the Clementine Ford (writer), and put on notice regarding the rules around BLP. Yet not only have you returned to re-insert exactly the same kinds of problematic material in the article, but you are posting messages on the talk page in which you state you see nothing wrong with it [30]. I note that another editor and I have previously explained on the article talk page why the Spectator is not a reliable source, yet you are continuing to pose this question. There has also been consensus in discussions on the article's talk page that the material is not suitable. As you seem unable to understand and comply with a core Wikipedia policy despite the previous discussions and the sanction and appear to be disrupting this BLP article to make a point, I have set the block duration to indefinite. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion [31] is a really bad idea. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Continuing the block evasion is even worse [32] [33]. Using an IP account to evade a block in order to edit war BLP violating material into an article against talk page consensus is taken very seriously. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Again. It is not me. You are making a wrong assumption. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arianewiki1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Nick-D:@TonyBallioni:@John:@Tigraan:@Ronjones:@Just Chilling:@Jmcgnh: First. I am not a sock of Special:Contributions/1.136.104.203, which according to User:Nick-D "This account is obviously Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs), and is being used to edit war BLP violating material into an article after they were blocked." [34] Special:Contributions/1.136.104.203 denies this too.[35][36] As I blocked, I cannot be checked as a sock nor able to prove did not block evading. Second. I saw the change on the Watchlist, and read the edit and I made the revert, as I wasn't sure why the version was changed by User:The Drover's Wife. I only said in the edit summary: "No explanation in revert. Discuss talkpage please." I requested this be BRD, so this can be sorted out, especially after said "User:Arianewiki1 in the talk page say the Spectator is a legitimate source. No one refuted him"[37] According to User:The Drover's Wife somehow "You are trying to cite an opinion column from a fringe conservative publication in article about a BLP. You have been *specifically* warned about doing this. Stop. Now."[38]. (I too refute The Spectator is either an 'opinion column' or a 'fringe conservative publication' (which I cannot find stated anywhere in English Wikipedia.) However, I am not directly citing this material, and it did not even enter my mind that I was violating BLP because I was asking for the reason to be discussed on the talkpage. After my only revert here, I went to the Talkpage and expressed the frustration off me (and many other editors) in how to include the information but not violate BLP.[39] This was to try to maintain some compromise so we could perhaps use Special:Contributions/1.136.104.203 material. (I even said "I urgently request that an independent admin help resolve this continuing impasse, without the fear of being trapped by ruthless admin discretionary powers repelling changes. Any guidance would be appreciated.", and was asking for independent guidance.) I was further responding to this here[40], but was blocked before I posted it. I had no desire to defy the BLP policy here, and was only just trying to solve the problem through the Talkpage. Frankly, I did think the revert by User:The Drover's Wife a bit too ruthless, especially with a IP. I.e. Don't bite the newbies. In future, if I'm allow to come back and edit, then I go to the talkpages in instances like this. In light of this, I feel an indefinite block is perhaps a little too harsh. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

An indefinite block does not mean infinite or forever, it means the block is not of a set time, and gives the blocked person an opportunity to explain themselves. If the explanation is satisfactory, they will be unblocked. Arianewiki1's explanation is not satisfactory. They attack the blocking admin, set out conditions for how the unblock request should be conducted, and do not address the issues. Arianewiki1 has a block record of edit warring. They do not address this. Before unblocking any user - regardless of how long they have been on Wikipedia or of how productive their work has been - I would like to see convincing reassurances that the problematic behaviour has been understood, and that such incidents will not occur again. Offering not to edit one BLP article is not adequate when it is considered how many hundreds of thousands of BLP articles we have. Arianewiki1, you may apply again for an unblock, but please do bear in mind that you need to stop making demands, and apply your self to explaining how you will not engage in edit warring or other disruptive editing, particularly on BLP articles. SilkTork (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In regards to your claim that you innocently didn't understand that you were violating BLP and were merely reverting an edit, this material is a direct continuation of the the BLP violations you were blocked for edit warring in May ([41] [42] [43]), and it was explained to you then that The Spectator is not a reliable source ([44] [45]). The fact that you blatantly violated BLP and talk page consensus in this way despite being specifically sanctioned and warned against doing so is the reason I have set the block duration to indefinite: I cannot think of a time period after which I will be confident that you will cease this conduct. Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: If I promise never to edit this page again, would you lift this block? My response above was absolutely written in good faith. Furthermore, please investigate the block evasion accusation, as I can assure you it wasn't me doing this as an IP. (I've never done this in 10-odd years of editing.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I (and, I suspect, any other reviewing admin) need to be confident that you will not violate WP:BLP on any article in the future. Could you please explain your understanding of this policy, and what your strategy for adhering to it in future is? Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D:IMPORTANT!!! Before I can do that, please resolve the block evasion issue first. You've actually said: "This account is obviously Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs), and is being used to edit war the BLP violations I blocked them for into the article."[46] This is not true. I've not engaged in any edit wars here nor have block evaded. (I've never block evaded.) Please show evidence to show this is true via the checkuser function.) This is a wrong assumption made by you, and immediately impacts on other admins possible decisions to lift this current block. I have never block evaded since I started editing here 11th January 2008. Please kindly retract this, and the statements[47] and [48].

As for the BLP violations, it is quite clear the writing anything on negative about a living person must be done with the utmost care, as incorrect statements can be possibly libelous against the WP. The reason citation of sources must be carefully applied to avoid misrepresenting the facts and not have statements based on opinions. Frankly, there is a fine line between acceptable and non-acceptable BLP, and any such additions must be considered with due caution. I have, and was aware of this, when I made the single revert, but in hindsight, was a wrong decision by me. My intent was not to cause disruptive or damaging editing, nor did I intend to enforce an an unacceptable viewpoint. I will not edit anything on this article again, and will be far more cautious when editing other BLP articles in future. Please take into account that I've edited here for +10 years and made some 6441 edits.

NOTE: Also if you must block editors, you should follow usual protocol. If you accept decline requests, it should be with the unblock request, and any reply should be listed under 'unblock reviewed' as done here[49] by TonyBallioni and SilkTork within the block review. It is appear unfair to the blocked user, because it looks like it is being ignored, and hat other admins cannot properly follow the logical process to make their reasonable decisions to resolve issues. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}

With this current block, I feel this administrator Nick-D is far over stepping their mark, abusing their discretionary powers, making undue accusations, and seemingly targeting me for even minor transgressions. I.e. Saying: "...you are posting messages on the talk page in which you state you see nothing wrong with it."

Really. How can BLP be violate on a talkpage where I have even mentioned to person in question? I have done nothing to warrant such a drastic action here, nor have I've been socking. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: Also see this[50] please, that shows such targeting. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You are really not doing yourself any favors here.

If you want your block lifted, you will have to own up to the mistakes you made. If you can see no mistake from your part in the whole Clementine Ford episode, look better, and try to imagine that maybe, maybe, there is a slight possibility you are in the wrong. For starters:

I added nothing at all here. All I did was reverted The Drover's Wife edit... Reverting a removal is equivalent to adding the content; you own up to the material you add in this way.
...because they did not explain the revert to the IP. As has been explained to you a thousand times, edit summaries are not mandatory - they are encouraged, sure, but an edit without an edit summary should never be reverted just because it lacks an edit summary.
I even attempted to discuss this (...) It is good to discuss things in good faith (meaning, you should listen to the other side's arguments and not assume bad faith from them). It is bad to make non-consensual edits during the discussion, or to try to make "your" version stick until ironclad consensus emerges. The default state of things is to not include the stuff you are discussing until the discussion is over.
With this current block, I feel this administrator (...) is far over stepping their mark, abusing their discretionary powers, making undue accusations, and seemingly targeting me for even minor transgressions. Well, that's hardly supported, but even assuming it is true, ask yourself if that kind of accusation is really the best way to go about appealing your block: it sets a tone of hostility that does not serve you well. It would be well better to explain why your transgressions were minor and which accusations are undue, exactly. (If you cannot put find an exact diff from Nick-D supporting these exact sentences, do not write them, and if you can find one, put it instead of the inflammatory sentence.)
How can BLP be violate[d] on a talkpage where I have [not] even mentioned to person in question? The problem is not and has never been you talking on the talk page, but that you reinstated controversial edits prior or during a discussion about those.
Don't use {{adminhelp}} in addition to the block review template. Seriously. You know it is going to make whoever answers you mad that you don't follow the process, right? Maybe you think it is going to make them answer faster, but I doubt it, and even so, faster in those conditions is certainly not better.

FWIW I think an indef is at the extreme end of admin discretion for a long-term editor and the block evasion case is not very tight (e.g. Special:Contributions/1.136.104.203 has better English than you and foregoes edit summaries sometimes). But with your attitude, nobody will defend you, even if you are right. Even without the Clementine Ford episode, I would not bet much money on you surviving a trip to ANI about long-term issues with collaborating editing, not because a case against you would be particularly solid, but because nobody would want to take your defense, even with your great contribution in astrophysics. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice summary Tigraan. I removed adminhelp, it helps no one. Also user should note Per the blocking policy and block appeals guidelines, unless exceptional or expedient circumstances apply, administrators should not unblock a user without prior discussion with the blocking admin, so any hostile tone towards the blocking admin will not go down well. I would suggest read Tigraan's text and reformat your unblock request. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. I’ve already declined this once. Another admin can review. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you're pinging me. In any case, Tigraan's summary seems a good one. If you can indicate that you understand what you have done wrong and that you will try not to do it again, I will ask Nick-D about unblocking you. --John (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It's actually fairly simple. Do you stand by this edit? Would you do this again? --John (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@John: No. I no longer stand by this edit. As I've said, I was wrong to do it as it is deemed as edit warring based on the previous edits, and the previous discussions on the articlle's talkpage. I made a big mistake here, based on the necessary restrictions for BLP. I will not deliberately do this again now knowing that it against policy. My apologies in causing this on-going problem, and further try and improve my editing skills and stick to protocol. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ping SilkTork

@SilkTork: Look. There are seemingly multiple complaints here. The assertions are that I have.

Block evaded, but I've stated I Have not engaged with this, and have requested this be investigated. (I cannot do this as I'm blocked.)
Broken BLP
Edit warring.

BLP: I responded below to this: "As for the BLP violations, it is quite clear the writing anything on negative about a living person must be done with the utmost care, as incorrect statements can be possibly libelous against the WP. The reason citation of sources must be carefully applied to avoid misrepresenting the facts and not have statements based on opinions. Frankly, there is a fine line between acceptable and non-acceptable BLP, and any such additions must be considered with due caution. I have, and was aware of this, when I made the single revert, but in hindsight, was a wrong decision by me. My intent was not to cause disruptive or damaging editing, nor did I intend to enforce an an unacceptable viewpoint. I will not edit anything on this article again, and will be far more cautious when editing other BLP articles in future. Please take into account that I've edited here for +10 years and made some 6441 edits." To further satisfy this, my ownhistory rarely edits BLP articles (I can't actually think of any other article. My history is mostly all with astronomy related articles. I made a terrible mistake here was the single revert. (Yes, I carefully read WP:BLP/H and WP:BLPHELP, which is why I asked on the talkpage, as stated on the first three points of WP:BLPHELP. I honestly reverted the text thinking of WP:BRD not BLP.)

Edit warring. I have made just one revert for this action to occur, being this[51], which I cannot see by itself as edit warring. Else or are you still assuming here I'm Special:Contributions/1.136.104.203 and are including this with their edits too? So far, User:Nick-D said to Special:Contributions/1.136.104.203This account is obviously Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs), and is being used to edit war the BLP violations I blocked them for into the article.[52] So far I've not engaged in any edit wars *in this revert* here nor have not block evaded. (I've never block evaded.) Nick-D, as far as I can tell, hasn't so far has not done a user check to verify this. They have left Special:Contributions/1.136.104.203 also as blocked for 72 hours for block evasion and was also declined.[53]

As for "...set out conditions for how the unblock request should be conducted." I don't think I did. I am trying to understand what the complaint is so I can properly respond to it. I wrote a request, but they responded outside the request.

The Problem. According to User:Nick-D the reason for the block is "The fact that you blatantly violated BLP and talk page consensus....". I've explained my mistake as above. However, I contend this is wrong as there is actually no consensus This only centres on the contention whether the stated cited "The Spectator" is a reliable source. Nick-D says on the talkpage: "The Spectator article referred to here is also an opinion article, which aren't suitable sources for facts in any articles, and especially not BLP articles."[54] Yet, on the talkpage it is mentioned only five times. There are two who agree (The Drover's Wife and Nick-D, and now three (or four) who disagree Arianewiki1,Special:Contributions/1.136.108.5,Special:Contributions/1.136.104.203, and VQuark.[55] Q: Can this really Talkpage consensus? (No one there is discussing the contentious nature of the content, only the legitimacy of the reference. I can find no statement on WP that says otherwise.) This why I've re-asked "How is The Spectator an unreliable source?"[56] (Also. Surely, some new consensus can be made differing from a former consensus, can't it?)

In the end, Nick-D's statement that: "Example text is not really quite factual, does not actually have consensus, as they do claim, in justifying this current block. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I have moved your text out of the Unblock request template as that is a closed discussion.

By refusing to accept that despite advice and warnings and blocks you continued to insert dubious material from inappropriate sources on a BLP article you are not doing yourself any favours. If you take a moment to review the events on Clementine Ford (writer) and all comments on this page, and think carefully about your behaviour, and then put forward an unblock request which shows your understanding of where you went wrong, and why you will not make those mistakes again, you will be unblocked. Inserting contentious material in a BLP article from a source you think is OK can be one of those things that editors do when they are new to Wikipedia, and once informed that it is not acceptable, they don't do it again. You took it upon yourself to fight to reinstate the material after you have been advised it was against policy, and you were then blocked for edit warring. After your block expired you reverted the removal of the contentious material. This is deliberate and aggressive and frankly stupid behaviour. Your raging against all and sundry that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that you want the unblock request to be done according to your rules does not encourage the view that you are a reflective, temperate, collegiate person - quite the reverse. I am being blunt here, but I am doing this to help you see why you are not being unblocked. And I am spending my time here writing this to give you some assistance in being unblocked. You need to stop raging. You need to stop blaming other people. You need to reflect on what YOU have done, and see where you went wrong. I have no idea if the IP editor was you. Nick-D in the circumstances made an assumption it was you. We don't use CheckUser to check if someone is innocent, so nobody will do a CheckUser on your request: "On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted." You may think that unfair, but there are reasons we do this. If the IP is not you then you have nothing to worry about. I haven't refused to unblock you for that reason anyway. But consider that if you start walking and talking like a duck then admins will start to think you are a duck. Your behaviour on that article is very poor, and socking is something that admins normally find goes hand in hand with such behaviour, and it happens that there is an IP account on that article who you are working with. If you stopped being so angry and blaming other people, and looked at your behaviour through other people's eyes, you might just help yourself, and us, and Wikipedia. SilkTork (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I'm not angry. I've just been falsely accused of socking as an IP to enforce a viewpoint. I've made only just one revert here to be blocked, which has been apparently deemed as blantent edit warring ELSE this one edit is being edit warring with the continued IP edits as well. If I have edit warred, then I deserve the block. As I cannot seemingly have the means to convince admins I did not sock, then this block will never be reverted, and even if it was, this would only be used against me in future. Acting a a sock and avoiding blocks is wrong, and I've seen and acted against the practice many times.

I've have made a big mistake making that single revert, which was simply momentary lapse of judgement. I thought I was protecting the IP, who had no explanation to why their edit was reverted within the edit summary. (They may have necessarily not have been needed to be advised, but that might have helped avoid this.) To correct it, apparently I now have confess all my past sins, and again explain the adopted policy and why I will not violate it (yet again). I've further said I will not edit this page again. I've said I cannot recall editing other BLP articles, as I'm interested mostly in scientific article on astronomy and astrophysics, so it is unlikely it will happen again. I've taken responsibility for this edit.

If that is not good enough, I don't know what else I should do.

Regardless, I do appreciate your response here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've just reread WP:EW again. As I said above "If I have edit warred, then I deserve the block.", then this is actually true. What hurts more is that I did the revert for a different reason. For my utterly stupid mistake here misinterpreting the adopted rules, I'll just have to live with the indefinite block. I regret wasting your time here, and apologies to User:Nick-D. Again, thanks for the honest advice. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, people often confuse edit warring with the three revert rule. A edit war can take place over a longer period. I was curious about you, so I looked at your first talkpage archive: User_talk:Arianewiki1/_Archive_2013 and noted that you were behaving in an arrogant and aggressive manner when you first joined, and you appear to have gone on a personal crusade to remove Wikipedia of Caldwell references and you appear to have a personal disregard for O'Meara. This edit [57] removes the term "Pincushion Cluster" which is cited to O'Meara's book as published by Cambridge University Press. I found that odd, given the respectability of Cambridge University Press, and the reputation of Stephen James O'Meara. So I looked up "Pincushion Cluster", and found several books using the term: [58], [59], [60], etc. I then looked at your talkpage archive for 2016: User_talk:Arianewiki1/Archive_2016, and note again that you are engaged in edit wars and uncivil behaviour. Putting all this together it now appears to me that you are probably not temperamentally suited to be editing Wikipedia as you prefer to do things your way regardless of if that is right or wrong, and you have allowed your personal bias (against Caldwell and O'Meara at least) to impact on Wikipedia's knowledge. This is not to say that you should remain permanently blocked, but that you have a long history on Wikipedia of confrontational editing, and of wanting to do things your way, regardless of if that is to the benefit of Wikipedia and our readers. You prioritise yourself over Wikipedia. As such, if there is to be an unblocking, your past behaviour and editing needs to be taken into consideration, and repairs made to articles you have been involved with, where necessary. It would help your case considerably if you were able to list those articles where you removed comments sourced to O'Meara, and those articles where you removed references to Caldwell. SilkTork (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I do disagree with the statement "...you appear to have gone on a personal crusade to remove Wikipedia of Caldwell references and you appear to have a personal disregard for O'Meara. The issue is that O'Meara made-up the object names (especially on southern objects) in that book, and is therefore a primary source. Caldwell numbers are not commonly used. I.e. SIMBAD, and there has been previous criticism of his creations. Your recent restoration of that text overrides needed consensus, especially as the older names already preexist. The number already appears in the star box. Your assessment here appears to be unjustified. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll add two further comments. O'Meara says pg.4: "If you live in the southern hemisphere, please note that the bookk is written with a definite northern-hemisphere bias." pg.16 O'Meara states he added these common names. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Every name was created by someone - what is important is how widely the name is used. As indicated by my cites, the term "pincushion cluster" is in use by several respected authors other than O'Meara. Wikipedia covers the whole world, not just one portion of it. What Wikipedia is about is gathering the sum of human knowledge and sharing it freely with others. Because "pincushion cluster" is not in use in Australia, doesn't mean we delete the knowledge that it is used in the rest of the world. The more knowledge we share, the more informed we all become. I saw no consensus for your removal of sourced information. Consensus is when the majority of people support an idea. Currently, the majority of people support "pincushion cluster", so that has the consensus both in terms of users wanting it, and in terms of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. SilkTork (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There is one adage that come to mind here. When someone is down you shouldn't kick them further, when human nature is added, it tends to find that when people are down you just kick harder. Please stop doing this.

I made these edits in good faith, whose evidence were made on the facts available at the time. (Eighteen month ago.) I used WP:UCRN and WP:Notability. 'Common usage" is fairly subjective IMO, with three of the references you've given being narrowly related just through the Caldwell list. A Google search finds only four sources[61], which I assume is how you found them. However, I would not call this universal by any means. Also "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers." As such, all the other statements in the last post by you are just assumptions. There is seemingly no evidence that there is any such consensus, and perhaps, this should be tested with an Rfc, or discussed on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects page. (Sadly, I can't do that as I'm blocked from editing.)

There has been many discussion on policy on how to use names. It is a common problem of individuals adding their own made up names for personal notoriety, promotion or other reasons. e.g. NGC 5866 [62] and the discussion here. See or example: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 27/CMG - "Catalogue of One Thousand Named Galaxies"

Really. For common names used with deep-sky objects they should be perhaps considered to have exist for many years, if only to save continued additions of fictional notability for promotion.

Q. Isn't the O'Meara source considered a primary source for the name?

I understand your concern regarding individuals making up names for personal reasons, but we don't make moral judgements on motives, we are neutral, so we include information based on what reliable sources say, not on editorial opinion on the morality of the author. If a number of sources use a name, then it is appropriate that we should mention it. If a source is giving an opinion that other sources don't share, then - depending on circumstances - we usually say something like "Author A says FOO"; if an author has coined a phrase then we might say: "The term was coined by Author A" (see The Scene That Celebrates Itself), and we could use the original sources to identify that, though in the later case we would need a secondary source to indicate that it was indeed Author A who coined the phrase. In the case of pincushion cluster I think it would be undue to detail that O'Meara coined it unless pincushion cluster became the primary name for the topic. As regards kicking you when you are down. That is not my intention. I am spending time here on your talkpage answering your questions, and giving explanations for my actions. I am hoping that you will through this start to understand why you have been blocked, and come to some kind of realisation of the way forward so you may be unblocked. That you are here asking me questions indicates that you wish to continue helping out on Wikipedia. As regards to restoring the information on NGC 3532 - we don't avoid doing the right thing on Wikipedia just because it may upset another editor. And your editing history doesn't show you being considerate to others. You have been aggressive, arrogant, and insulting. Again, I'm not saying this simply to knock you, but calling it how it is so you can open your eyes to the reality. The nature of Wikipedia editing can be upsetting at times. Most of us feel that stress at some point or other, particularly when our work is undone. Those editors who cannot overcome that stress, or feel too personally when their edits are undone, are not best suited to editing Wikipedia. It is mostly those such editors who get indefinitely blocked. In order for Wikipedia to work, we need editors who are collegiate, polite, and do not fight. Who are able to put aside their personal feelings for the good of the project. I have said before that I think you put yourself before Wikipedia, and here you are complaining that when I correct an edit you make, you are more concerned about your personal feelings than with Wikipedia's aim of sharing the sum of human knowledge. If you are able to reflect on that, and come to a decision yourself if you are suited to editing Wikipedia - if you are able to adjust to putting the project first, then you may have a place here. But if you reflect on the matter, and find that you would be unable to change, then you need to accept that and move away to other interests. SilkTork (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Again. Q. Isn't the O'Meara source considered a primary source for the name? 23:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Umm..."As regards kicking you when you are down. That is not my intention.", when it clearly says WP:PA : "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor." & "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user." Yet just merrily continuing doing it...

OK. Let's test these broad assumptions. Looking at either the extensive edits with Asterism (astronomy) or Pulsar wind nebula, this invitation[63], and this exchange [64]. Saying "And your editing history doesn't show you being considerate to others.", yet experiences like[65], seemingly says otherwise.

I've explained above my position regarding O'Meara's created name and the reasoning for my edit. (Edit summary says "It is not commonly know as the Pincushion Cluster, O'Meara only made up the name. It is called the Football Cluster, and know[n] for this over decades." O'Meara's says in the original cited reference: "...where no name seems to be in use, we have taken the liberty of suggesting our own name." However, it at least already historically had two names.) You disagree, but I've made no moral judgement here, just based it on the available evidence.

Yet even considering in July 2013, that I already greatly improve the article, fixed some errors, added new cites[66] : acted all in WP:GF - yet this is now all predicated seemingly via negative personal flaws nor in wanting to improve articles. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

IP response

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

@Donama: This edit[67] is certainly not me. I now feel I maybe being anonymously being targeted by exploiting my inability to edit. I do not know how to counter this mimicry, and request admin help to help resolve this. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Note: I should have said [68] [69], and the accusation here[70].

This all looks like block evasion, but I can guarantee it is not me. The IP is in Victoria Australia. I'm in New South Wales, Australia.

Although I'm currently a blocked user by my own doing, there maybe untoward tactics being used to just eliminate Users by mimicking sockpuppetry in which a blocked User has no defense or is being done just to deliberately expose anonymous Users. There maybe procedural issues here that need further consideration.

I had not intend to resubmit a request to lift this block for awhile, in attempt to solve the current BLP impasse. You are quite welcome to test any relationship between me and an IP. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to waste time counting how many times on this page you have said that those IP edits were not by you. I don't see that there is anything new to be said about the matter, or that pestering administrators about it after almost two weeks achieves anything apart from wasting the time of those administrators, who could have spent the same time on more productive work. If you continue to post the adminhelp template when there is no administrative action to request it is likely that your talk page access will be removed to prevent further waste of time. Also, if you do ever decide to post another unblock request the more disruptive and unproductive editing you are seen to have been doing the less likely that request is to succeed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Review Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arianewiki1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My block here is no longer necessary as I now understand biographic articles should not appear to support possible libelous, slanderous or negative unsupported views by poor citations or deemed unacceptable sources. The follow-up original single revert that lead to this block was a bad mistake by me. I should not have done that. I will not be doing it again, and I intend to make productive contributions instead, especially improving astronomy related articles as I have done in the past. Thanks.

If this is considered unacceptable, please kindly copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

User does not agree to unblock conditions; therefore no consensus to unblock. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please don't post duplicate unblock requests. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's my deal:

You agree to an indefinite one revert rule restriction. That means you may only make one revert per article per 24 hours.
The restriction does not cover blatant vandalism or copyright violations, that any reasonable editor would conclude as disruptive. It does apply to BLPs; given your track record, I am not confident enough that you can be trusted to know what clear and obvious libel and slander is. If in doubt, do not revert.
You agree to use only this account; if you find an IP unrelated to you is behaving disruptively in an article, walk away from it and edit somewhere else.
If you violate this restriction, you agree to be blocked indefinitely with talk page access disabled, at which point your only option is to wait a lengthy period for the standard offer.
The restriction may be possible to appeal by starting a post at WP:AN; however I would advise you do not do this before 6-12 months, otherwise it is unlikely to be successful.

If you agree to all of the above, I will put the restriction in place and unblock you. However, I also want to get sign-off from the blocking admin, Nick-D about this. If he says, "no, I can't accept those conditions" then I'm afraid the deal is off. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Comment? Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no problems with those conditions. Do you agree to abide by them? Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, I probably can fully comply with such restrictions, except perhaps with a small issue towards point 1.

Yes, I'd happily take a indefinite ban 1RR on all BLP articles, as after this experience over the last few months, I have no desire to engage with any kind of BLP article again. Yet as my own past constructive edits over many years have been 99.99% been on factual astronomical and scientific based articles, so such a wider restriction seems a little too harsh, especially as many of these edits mostly in repairs either blantent vandalism or factual significant errors. (My entire watchlist has 646 different pages, none are BLP related, and all are astronomically related.) Looking at the many changes made since being indefinitely blocked, fixing many of the new introduced errors will take sometimes to get right. If you allow me to continue, I do hope continue in improving these astronomy related articles as I have done in the past. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

And your astronomy and science related work on Wikipedia requires violating 1RR? Why? Huon (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: Given that "The restriction does not cover blatant vandalism or copyright violations, that any reasonable editor would conclude as disruptive." and an appeal is possibility after a reasonable amount of time at WP:AN I too would like a reasonable explanation as to why you would like this modification of the terms set by Ritchie333. Could you provide an example where you would use more than one RR that wouldn't be better solved by requesting mediation or help from an admin? Endercase (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Given the concerns I raised at User talk:Arianewiki1#Edit summaries and the broader range of edit warring issues identified by @SilkTork: at User talk:Arianewiki1#Ping SilkTork, I think that a general 1RR restriction is appropriate given that problematic behaviour has occurred in Arianewiki1's editing on astronomy subjects. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it has to be indefinite 1RR or decline the unblock request - I can't put it simpler than that, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Nick-D. I think User:Ritchie333 has made a generous offer, and this would give Arianewiki1 a chance to get back into productive editing. My feeling is that allowing one revert straight away might be too tempting. As Arianewiki1 points out in their unblock request it was a "single revert that lead to this block" (my bold). Most editors who are not vandal fighting can get by quite productively without ever (or rarely) making a single revert, so asking someone not to revert good faith edits, but to engage in a discussion instead, doesn't seem that onerous, especially when that person has a history of problematic reverts. A quick glance at Arianewiki1's contribution history will show a particularly high number of single reverts, often accompanied by an edit summary such as "Use talk page", "Please get consensus", "Nothing wrong with this cited text. You'll need consensus to remove it. Sorry.", " Not a valid reason for revert here.", etc - all of which are indicative of a situation in which discussion would be helpful. Not all of Arianewiki1's reverts are inappropriate - there are times when Ariane's edit is the preferred one; it is the editing model of "revert first, discuss later" that is the problem, as that approach is the one that has led to three blocks since 2013 for aggressive reverting. I would suggest offering WP:0RR initially, with the option to appeal after six months. Under WP:0RR, Arianewiki1 would be expected to engage in discussion with a contributor who has made an edit Ariane disagrees with, and for consensus to be reached on the way forward. If consensus cannot be found with the contributor, then follow the processes outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It is a longer method, but it is a fairer one, and it is the method preferred on Wikipedia. SilkTork (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me of a long and drawn out unblock request with Winkelvi where we seemed to spend weeks debating whether it should be 0 or 1 RR. I'd rather keep things simple, and we have a reasonable consensus for 1RR, which would be easier for Arianewiki1 to agree to. Otherwise, with a 0RR suggestion, they may say "oh, enough of this" and slink off. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"...problematic behaviour has occurred in Arianewiki1's editing on astronomy subjects." I have been blocked here for violating BLP, and not because of this. I've repeatably stated I've made an error of judgement which I regret and stated I will not again transgress. This latest block is based on only one revert[71] where The Drover's Wife made a revert on an IP 1.136.104.66 without explanation who said "User:Arianewiki1 in the talk page say the Spectator is a legitimate source. No one refuted him". My own revert looks like re-enforcing a POV, which was interpreted as violating BLP for which I was indefinitely blocked. The IP then made a series of additional reverts and then became accused of socking.

I accept these were BLP violations here, and have responded accordingly. The sanctions stated are accepted by me.

However, the indefinite 1RR I still think is a little harsh, especially towards the edit towards this current block isn't really 3RR related. (unless you do think the assumption of me socking to get around the reverts is valid.) Yet now it seems all other digressions are now in play. Frankly, my consistent large number of reverts that have ever made were for simple IP vandalism with those astronomy pages. Yet I do regularly discuss issues on the article's talkpages in disputes, and with will write relevant and good edit summaries explaining why. Whilst the letter of the law is that might be edit summaries are not mandatory, editors are encouraged to do so because it helps to understand reverts else there is not means of understanding why it is done nor what should be actually be discussed on the talkpage to resolve a dispute if it arises. According to SilkTork statement about "it is the editing model of "revert first, discuss later" that is the problem, as that approach is the one that has led to three blocks since 2013 for aggressive reverting." But this isn't quite true. I.e. The issue in 2015 was more about derogatory comments and WP:PA made to me by another User talkpages, which was anyway lifted due to continuing PA and the other User ended up banned. I have always tried to follow the precepts of WP:BRD, but accordingly this is now a problem? If you revert an edit, then you are responsible for it. I get that.

Yet if now I violate 1RR in anyway, even away from BLP, I'll be just again blocked with little chance of removing the block in future. If you do think 3RR is a problem, then just block me the next time I defy it. If you wish to sanction be for BLP, do that, but to get me for BLP+3RR, when I haven't really done 3RR in this single article I'm just being sanctioned for, just seems a little too harsh. (Even bringing it up, yet now 0RR should now be considered?) Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been watching this, and if I were reviewing it I'd be tempted to decline your request and walk away now. So can I give you a little advice? Recognize the reality of the situation, stop the arguing, and just say "Yes, I accept 1RR" (I can't actually tell if you accepted it in all of that verbiage). Then after, say, six months without problems, ask the blocking and/or unblocking admin if you can appeal it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My neck is on the block here. I've responded honestly and with good faith here, as to not make false commitments. The argument of edit warring is mostly specious, where my transgressions are based on "violating BLP", as per Nick-D discretionary powers on BLP not on edit warring nor exceeding 3RR now five years ago. I'll happily edit astronomy pages, which I'm qualified to do, but I will not falsely acceded to something I didn't really do. If I break BLP again, I get what I deserve. All 1RR or 3RR does in punish me for past digressions, where the alleged behaviour by Nick-D has not really been asserted at all within the given blocked announcements. 1RR or 3RR is mostly a secondary issue. I maybe continued to be blocked, but to make promise to something I cannot adhere to is ultimately dishonest by me and ultimately doomed to further sanctions either by some unknowing mistake or failing either by doing the right thing or humanist stupidity. To say otherwise is bearing false wittiness or insincerity to get my way. Your choice. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear. I will not defy 3RR again. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've create here any extraordinary reasons to object to a return. Whether I break 1RR or 3RR, if I defy BLP again, admins will have justification to block me. If 3RR occurring again, then this current situation is superfluous, as then I'll be sanctioned blocked anyway. 1RR is unnecessary as it is independent of Violations of the biographies of living persons policy, which will be immediately evoked if I do so again. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the proposed 1RR restriction is very reasonable, and it is endorsed by two very reasonable admins (and by me too now), and I can't see anyone unblocking you with anything less than that. Although it would be indefinite, you would certainly be able to appeal it after a reasonable period (typically held to be around six months). And it seems easy enough to me to avoid breaking a 1RR restriction - just think before every revert, and if you have any doubt at all about whether it is 1RR or more, simply don't do it. Anyway, you've had my advice - it's up to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The 1RR is to prove to us that you have reformed and can be a productive editor without any disruption; if you can do that, and get the restriction appealed, then all will be well and we'll forget about it. But we need proof first that you aren't just going to wind up getting blocked again. The restrictions are also to convince to the blocking admin (and other admins who have questioned whether you should be unblocked) that the original reason for the block is no longer necessary. It's a compromise between all parties. I don't like leaving unblock requests hanging, so I'm going to put it in simple terms : In your next comment here, if you do not say "yes, I will abide by 1RR", I will decline your unblock request. That's really as simple as I can get it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The block is based on "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy." You said: "You agree to an indefinite one revert rule restriction." Even simplier question. Is 1RR based on violation of BLP or edit warring? If the latter is true, what evidence do you base on edit warring, because the current block is based solely on one wrong edit? My very bad mistake. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

As you did not respond to a very direct statement with consequences, I have declined your unblock request as you do not want to agree to the unblock conditions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My apologies but this indefinite 1RR is unjustified and too harsh whose decision is based on one solitary revert edit of an unrelated IP's edit. e.g. There are 42 days (15 May to 28 June) between these single edit and my last solitary revert. Seriously, there is little difference between 1RR or 3RR here, because the block is based on BLP not actual edit warring. I will unlikely be requesting any further unblocks, because I cannot falsely acceded to something I didn't really do. Thanks for you all for your efforts here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:@Boing! said Zebedee: After seeing this[72] discussion. It is clear by this response too[reverted] that I can usefully help fixing the stated problem with this article and make productive contributions. So "Yes, I will abide by 1RR". Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Review Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Arianewiki1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My block here is no longer necessary as I now understand biographic articles should not appear to support possible libelous, slanderous or negative unsupported views by poor citations or deemed unacceptable sources. The follow-up original single revert that lead to this block was a bad mistake by me. I should not have done that. I will not be doing it again, and I intend to make productive contributions instead, especially improving astronomy related articles as I have done in the past. Thanks.

I have again requested this for a second time, after seeing this[73] discussion. It is clear by this response [74] that I can usefully help fix the current stated problem with this article and make productive contributions. So "Yes, I will now abide by 1RR".

Again, if this is considered unacceptable, please kindly copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. This was not done in the previous request. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked with the following conditions:

You agree to an indefinite one revert rule restriction. That means you may only make one revert per article per 24 hours.
The restriction does not cover blatant vandalism or copyright violations, that any reasonable editor would conclude as disruptive. It does apply to BLPs; given your track record, I am not confident enough that you can be trusted to know what clear and obvious libel and slander is. If in doubt, do not revert.
You agree to use only this account; if you find an IP unrelated to you is behaving disruptively in an article, walk away from it and edit somewhere else.
If you violate this restriction, you agree to be blocked indefinitely with talk page access disabled, at which point your only option is to wait a lengthy period for the standard offer.
The restriction may be possible to appeal by starting a post at WP:AN; however I would advise you do not do this before 6-12 months, otherwise it is unlikely to be successful. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: thanks

Welcome back! -- Elphion (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)