DCBarrow

Permanent snapshot of toxic editing environment on the Wikipedia Project

Link 1: In 2009, I made edits for the first time on Wikipedia. This consisted of adding material as Haruspex101 to the bio of a living person which was then attacked by an extremely biased ArbCom editor YellowMonkey. I was indefinitely blocked for what was said to be "making legal threats" when the editing record actually shows that I disclosed I had no legal standing and that I was pointing out, as a sensible editor should, that there were legal exposures arising from the material that had been posted about the subject of the bio page. I was further blocked from making edits to User_talk:Haruspex101, including making any unblock requests. In 2011, the ArbCom editor YellowMonkey faced a major Community Debate(link) as to that person's conduct as a privileged editor. After this, YellowMonkey never edited again under that username. Debate about YellowMonkey continued such as here.

Link 2: over 8 years later, I returned to edit under my real world name: DCBarrow. Given the long absence, and preferring not to stir up the past again, I considered it was best to do this afresh. I then experienced hounding and was indefinitely blocked, said to be on the grounds that the User_talk:Haruspex101 block of 9 years ago had not been removed.

I will make another application for unblocking with these observations. In doing so I am also documenting the Wikipedia editing environment, although I do not expect this will be of much interest to the internal world of the Project which has its own rules and norms, even if they are toxic.

I don't see the utility of writing more. DCBarrow (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

2 welcomes

Just a check - if you are writing about yourself - the WP:COI issue looms. Seek guidance if you are not sure where things start or end. JarrahTree 01:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I intend to stay in Talk concerning Article references to myself. Thought it might be interesting to chat with someone (me) "in the arena". If there are objections, I will just stop. I am not operating any other Wikipedia account. DCBarrow (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no personal objections, just a heads up in case someone tries to throw a policy or whatever at you. I encourage you to be positive and stay in there. JarrahTree 02:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Explaining improvements to EEng

Do you have questions why my edits to the article are improvements?

See also: LINK

And [[1]] DCBarrow (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

EEng writes:

"The article has far too much WP:OR as it is. We don't "monitor" cases. Restrict yourself to WP:SECONDARY sources. EEng 12:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)"

Well, my edits on this article include no WP:OR. It is all from WP:PRIMARY. I can understand if this is not a topic area within your ability. As to your comment on "monitor", I was in the talk area and so talking about the future of the article.DCBarrow (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any Australian Constitutional Law expertise given you reversed this EDIT. I also note that you did not work it through the Talk page first, if you do not claim Australian Constitutional Law expertise. Consider the note which arises from the WP:PRIMARY: "Correction: Common Informers action may be commenced and then stayed until eligibility is determined, as in Alley v Gillespie." DCBarrow (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This should be easy to solve. Do you have any sources that analyse the High Court decision(s) that say what you are editing? Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

A conclusion is drawn in the article (without reference to a WP:Primary or WP:Secondary):

"The penalty provided for under the Common Informers Act may only thereafter be pursued once a finding on liability has been made."

WP:PRIMARY directly contradicts this at 69:

"The plaintiff's proceeding under the Common Informers Act should be stayed until the question whether the defendant is incapable of sitting is determined."

Therefore: "The penalty provided for under the Common Informers Act may only thereafter be pursued once a finding on liability has been made." should be deleted and the following is a good edit summary: "Correction: Common Informers action may be commenced and then stayed until eligibility is determined, as in Alley v Gillespie." DCBarrow (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wikiain there have been some incorrect edits by EEng at Diff LINK. And I'm not surprised I'm blocked the way things seem to work on Wikipedia sometimes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DCBarrow (talk • contribs) 14:24, July 14, 2018 (UTC)

Let me make this even easier. A source other than the High Court itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked this account indefinitely as it is seemingly used for the single purpose of engaging in soapbox activities to promote content relating to yourself in a manner that is incompatible with our behavioral guideline as described in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI editing. To appeal this decision, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Alex Shih (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Does that answer your question, DCBarrow? EEng 13:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

No. I do not understand why you will not engage with me explaining why the content of the article has been improved. Although it may be that you do not understand Australian Constitutional law. Or something else is going on. DCBarrow (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #22058 was submitted on Jul 14, 2018 13:39:40. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:39, 14 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

My edits to [46 of the Constitution of Australia] are improvements by an Australian lawyer (i.e. an expert) which correct the expression of the law and also cover the most significant factual developments in this arcane area of the law since it was introduced in s 46 of the Australian Constitution in 1901 and then displaced by the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975.

My edits to all Article pages are relevant, factual and sourced from High Court of Australia cases, judgments, transcripts and the Australian Constitution and federal legislation:

[Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis]

[46 of the Constitution of Australia]

All this can be objectively checked. Some edits refer to my own litigation and some do not. Whilst there is a surface COI for some of the edits this is fully mitigated by the source material being the actual High Court of Australia judgments, transcript and court orders.

My edits to Talk pages have been self-removed, albeit that the most recent has been reversed by an unrelated user. DCBarrow (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It is disappointing that, in my experience, Wikipedia is a place which seems to foster incivility and worse.

This was the experience I found with my only other previous account on Wikipedia way back in 2009: User_talk:Haruspex101. So far I am finding things have not improved in the past 9 years. Perhaps they will.

---

Unblock Review Team noreply-unblock@toolserver.org via wikimedia.org 12:24 AM (17 minutes ago) to me This is a reply to your Wikipedia unblock appeal from Just Chilling, a Wikipedia administrator. DO NOT reply to this email - it is coming from an unattended email address.

Hello DCBarrow,

As you still have access to your talk page, and as there is no private information associated with your appeal, please post your unblock request to your user talk page for administrator review. You can follow these instructions.

Thank you,

Just Chilling English Wikipedia Administrator

Decline reason:

Thank you for telling us you are evading an existing block; your account User:Haruspex101 is blocked for making legal threats, and every edit you've made since is in violation of that block. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)s

---

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.

Jpgordon your premises are (1) I made legal threats (which I deny) and (2) the 2009 user block which I disclosed is or should still be in force 9 years later. I've requested an ArbCom. Wikipedia has its internal tests. And the external community has its tests of what is to be made of the Wikipedia Project. So our tests are now running both ways. DCBarrow (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not surprising why people avoid attempting to edit Wikipedia pages. In my experience, Admins can be unpleasant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCBarrow (talk • contribs) 17:03, July 14, 2018 (UTC)

• DCBarrow, to pick up our conversation (above) from before you were blocked, the problem lies not in my understanding of Australian law or whathaveyou, but rather in your understanding of how Wikipedia works and, to be honest, to some extent how the English language works. When I said "Restrict yourself to WP:SECONDARY sources" that means we use (in general) only secondary sources – not, as you seem to think, that we avoid secondary sources. We do not use, as you keep using, primary sources (as when you said "Well, my edits on this article include no WP:OR. It is all from WP:PRIMARY"). Working from primary sources is the very definition of WP:OR. I'm afraid editing Wikipedia appears to be not within your ability (to borrow a phrase I read somewhere). EEng 16:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • EEng I note WP:PSTS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The edit referenced in the conversation (above) concerns removing an edit which is not a WP:SECONDARY. In the circumstances, where as matter of logic the WP:PRIMARY contradicts it, the edit should be deleted until an authorative WP:SECONDARY on point can be sourced or indeed the very point is referenced in a WP:PRIMARY -- which I note it already is. I do feel I'm wasting my time on this Wikiepedia Project, with so much sass amd worse directed at me. DCBarrow (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

    You're wasting your time because (a) you're here to promote yourself and your crusade, which is inconsistent with the purposes of Wikipedia; and (b) you really do seem to have trouble grasping the basic rules of sourcing and editing. Your latest post is unintelligible. EEng 17:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• • EEng I will break it down for you, so perhaps you might grasp it. Firstly, what do you say is the source of this edit:

"The penalty provided for under the Common Informers Act may only thereafter be pursued once a finding on liability has been made."

Hint: it is a conclusion. And it's incorrect or at the very least it is not drawn from any WP:PSTS source.

Secondly, please read my previous edit again carefully. You might learn something.

I am feeling that I am wasting my time on this Wikipedia Project given the sort of arguments and people I am dealing with. DCBarrow (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Because of your obvious COI, OR, and use of primary sources, I returned the article to the state it was in before you arrived, with minor changes [2] – no better and no worse than it was when all this started, but certainly better than with your self-promoting OR and so on. I've been trying to help you understand how much you still have to learn about how things are done around here, but it's not working. I think you'd better concentrate on your upcoming election and leave Wikipedia to disinterested editors. In any event, you're blocked and should be using this page only for making unblock requests. EEng 18:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hilarious outcome and hilarious result. Byeee! Timeshift (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  You shouldn't tease like that, Timeshift9, though I understand the impulse because this guy really was begging for it. EEng 07:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

;) Timeshift (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Well I feel ripped off here. Others have been getting accused of personal attacks, while all I've been accused of is measly harassment! Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Personal attacks are cheap one-offs. Harassment takes time and determination. EEng 15:38, 15 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Link 1: In 2009, I made edits for the first time on Wikipedia. This consisted of adding material as Haruspex101 to the bio of a living person which was then attacked by an extremely biased ArbCom editor YellowMonkey. I was indefinitely blocked for what was said to be "making legal threats" when the editing record actually shows that I disclosed I had no legal standing and that I was pointing out, as a sensible editor should, that there were legal exposures arising from the material that had been posted about the subject of the bio page. I was further blocked from making edits to User_talk:Haruspex101, including making any unblock requests. In 2011, the ArbCom editor YellowMonkey faced a major Community Debate(link) as to that person's conduct as a privileged editor. After this, YellowMonkey never edited again under that username. Debate about YellowMonkey continued such as here.

Link 2: over 8 years later, I returned to edit under my real world name: DCBarrow. Given the long absence, and preferring not to stir up the past again, I considered it was best to do this afresh. I then experienced hounding and was indefinitely blocked, said to be on the grounds that the User_talk:Haruspex101 block of 9 years ago had not been removed.

I will make another application for unblocking with these observations. In doing so I am also Documenting the Wikipedia editing environment, although I do not expect this will be of much interest to the internal world of the Project which has its own rules and norms, even if they are toxic.

I don't see the utility of writing more.

DCBarrow (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Let's be clear here – you were not initially blocked on this account for evading your previous block. You were blocked for treating Wikipedia as a place to promote yourself and your own candidacy, and from what I can see, essentially every edit you made was to further that purpose. Your edits strongly indicate that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather just to promote yourself – on its own a reason to decline this appeal. The previous block (with appeals reviewed and declined by three independent administrators) is also sufficient to decline this appeal. I would think carefully about the contents of any further appeal, as a revocation of talk page access is likely if further unconvincing block appeals are submitted. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:18, 8 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.