Aoidh
| This is Aoidh's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Talk page archives (Auto-archiving period: 14 days  )
2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024 |
Intractable user
editHey Aoidh. Since our last discussion here involving the user Kalanishashika, they have gone back to edit warring on the Tamil genocide article and have once again gamed the system by reverting 1RR protected article outside the 24-hours limit.[1][2] They reverted before even engaging the talk discussion that I had opened. They were instead openly canvassing other users in another discussion. This is despite knowing that Sri Lanka is a contentious topic and being warned by an admin about gaming the system last time. I don't see this disruptive behaviour subsiding without admin intervention.---Petextrodon (talk) Petextrodon (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am very disappointed at this statement. As I have indicated in the page comment, my revert today have been to return the page to the content before the current dispute took place and engage in the talk page discussion, which I did. As I indicated in my comments, I have been clear that my intentions are to avoid an edit war like last time. However, like last time, Petextrodon seem to have engaged in personal attacks on me by reporting Sockpuppet investigation, leveling accusations which I clearly answered last time. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- You intended to avoid an edit war by reverting for the second time while ignoring the discussion I had opened yesterday even as you were canvassing another banned user Kashmiri whom you were tag-teaming with in the past? I will let the admin decide.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Petextrodon and Kalanishashika: it may be time to use a form of dispute resolution such as WP:3O. - Aoidh (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Aoidh, yes please. In the meantime, I feel that both Petextrodon and Oz346 are trying to intimidate me in more than one way. Petextrodon has reported a Sockpuppet investigation claiming that I am a meatpuppet, only a day later Oz346 has reported another Sockpuppet investigation. I honestly don't feel that this was done in good faith, and this is exhausting, since [not the first time] (I found out only later). What's annoying is that's the same set of reasons that keep coming up, like the about BLP. I mean one wrong step (if it is a wrong step) and they come down on me like a load bricks. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I never notified you of the SPI request for you to consider it an intimidation. You obviously have gone through my edit history.
- My complaint is about this user repeatedly gaming the system to force their version. How should I address this issue if it continues in the future? Even a warning by an admin has not worked.---Petextrodon (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Petextrodon, so you mean to say your intentions were not intimidation, but to get admins to sanction me? Is that what Oz346 meant by this comment? I must say that two SPIs within two days seems excessive to me. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Each time a user adds details on government crimes to the article you challenge it in some way and resort to edit war. My concern is that you're obstructing other editors by constant stonewalling. Would you like to state your conflict of interest if there is any, as after all you did vote to get the article deleted?---Petextrodon (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Petextrodon, anyone who goes through the edit log of the page would see that you and Oz346, have been editing it the way you want. You two seem to remove any content that you disagree with and engage in edit waring when someone disagree with content you two add. You seem to want to keep your newly added content and go into the talk page defending it. While content of others you remove and argue preventing it from being added disregarding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Right now, you have started an argument on an admin page, with the sole intention of getting the admin to sanction me, while Oz346 has done the same on SPI. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I do think you have engaged in sanctionable behaviour repeatedly and sanction may by the last remedy in intractable cases. As you seem to have gotten off the hook once again, there's no point in continuing this discussion which was about edit warring.---Petextrodon (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Petextrodon, there was no point in starting this discussion in someone's talk page like some soap opera. If you felt that my behavior was sanctionable you should have taken it to the appropriate forum, not try to canvas an admin to sanction me. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea. I will file an arbitration request at WP:ARE if this behaviour persists.---Petextrodon (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Petextrodon, there was no point in starting this discussion in someone's talk page like some soap opera. If you felt that my behavior was sanctionable you should have taken it to the appropriate forum, not try to canvas an admin to sanction me. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I do think you have engaged in sanctionable behaviour repeatedly and sanction may by the last remedy in intractable cases. As you seem to have gotten off the hook once again, there's no point in continuing this discussion which was about edit warring.---Petextrodon (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Petextrodon, anyone who goes through the edit log of the page would see that you and Oz346, have been editing it the way you want. You two seem to remove any content that you disagree with and engage in edit waring when someone disagree with content you two add. You seem to want to keep your newly added content and go into the talk page defending it. While content of others you remove and argue preventing it from being added disregarding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Right now, you have started an argument on an admin page, with the sole intention of getting the admin to sanction me, while Oz346 has done the same on SPI. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Each time a user adds details on government crimes to the article you challenge it in some way and resort to edit war. My concern is that you're obstructing other editors by constant stonewalling. Would you like to state your conflict of interest if there is any, as after all you did vote to get the article deleted?---Petextrodon (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Petextrodon, so you mean to say your intentions were not intimidation, but to get admins to sanction me? Is that what Oz346 meant by this comment? I must say that two SPIs within two days seems excessive to me. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Aoidh, yes please. In the meantime, I feel that both Petextrodon and Oz346 are trying to intimidate me in more than one way. Petextrodon has reported a Sockpuppet investigation claiming that I am a meatpuppet, only a day later Oz346 has reported another Sockpuppet investigation. I honestly don't feel that this was done in good faith, and this is exhausting, since [not the first time] (I found out only later). What's annoying is that's the same set of reasons that keep coming up, like the about BLP. I mean one wrong step (if it is a wrong step) and they come down on me like a load bricks. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Petextrodon and Kalanishashika: it may be time to use a form of dispute resolution such as WP:3O. - Aoidh (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- You intended to avoid an edit war by reverting for the second time while ignoring the discussion I had opened yesterday even as you were canvassing another banned user Kashmiri whom you were tag-teaming with in the past? I will let the admin decide.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Is the Arbitration Over?
editThis Case. I'm a little bit disappointed that you didn't even consider the reason I reverted the change on San Bernardino County, California (that having presidential election results on county pages is a long established thing that exists on most if not all other county pages and shouldn't be done without seeking a new consensus), and I don't have much time to do edits on Wikipedia today anyway (the Census Bureau changed their API so I'd have to do more work to even do much slower semi-automated updates to populations, so those are not getting updated anymore but that's another story).
Anyway, is the arbitration over now that it's September 4 and decision final date was September 3? DemocraticLuntz (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @DemocraticLuntz: 3 September was the date when the proposed decision was due, meaning the drafters for the case had until that date to post the proposed decision on Wikipedia. The case is not over until the vote to close the case has passed, as some arbs are still determining their position on each aspect of the proposed decision. - Aoidh (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Proper names of districts
editI'm happy with the edit! Just a clarification, "Gwinnett County Public Schools" does not mean a collection of schools per se, but rather, the proper name of the school district. A lot of US school districts have proper names of "---- Public Schools". I'm trying to communicate that it's within the district's boundaries.
When I am talking about a collection of schools, I use "Gwinnett County Public Schools schools", the common noun "schools" (uncapitalized) referring to the schools within the district. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)