User talk:HansClumsy

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Marina Ovsyannikova. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Renat 22:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Marina Ovsyannikova. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Renat 22:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Marina Ovsyannikova shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Levivich 22:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in an edit war. I think it is pretty obvious that there is a consensus with 23 in favor of keep and 4 in favor of delete. HansClumsy (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to see WP:PNSD. Renat 23:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well you my friend might want to see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marina_Ovsyannikova HansClumsy (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HansClumsy, your removal of the AfD template while the discussion is ongoing is prohibited and will lead to a block on your account if you remove it again.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that there is a strong consensus already, and that the Articles for deletion tag is degrading ms Ovsyannikova just as a deletion-tag on the Tank Man would degrade him and his act and play into the hands of China censorship. I suggest removing the tag immedeately. This does not mean that this discussion has to stop. Only the tag should be removed. The Whole world is googling her, and wiki has a tag on her that suggest she should be deleted - well that is not wiki-integrity. HansClumsy (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC) HansClumsy (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue those points, but they have no basis in policy. The tag will be removed when the deletion discussion is closed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the tag while the discussion is open is against our rules. As long as the discussion is open, the tag remains on the top of the article, specifically so that people reading the article will be made aware of the discussion. The tag at the top of the article is why the discussion is generating so much participation. Without that tag, the discussion might have received much less participation. Without that tag, the article might have been deleted. And trust me on two things: the tag does not degrade Ms. Ovsyannikova; the tag only degrades Wikipedia :-) And it will be gone soon anyway; the article will not be deleted and the discussion will not remain open much longer. Levivich 23:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but RIGHT NOW everybody wants to know who she is, and Wiki is saying - with a red warning tag - yeah, well, she is up for debate. "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy."

Wiki has a problem when a minority (4 out of 32) can cast doubt on a person with a tag like this created for a diffent context but playing into the hands of a dictator. HansClumsy (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So now the tag was deleted by someone else, and I was right all along. But who decides when discussion is closed?

I took upon me to close discussion as a clear consensus HAD emerged(32 of 36 people agreed). But you guys warned me that I would be blocked? HansClumsy (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (User talk:Ponyo) for repeatedly pestering another editor who has said they do not want to continue the discussion.

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 ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you have continued to be disruptive on the noticeboards, I have increased this block to be site-wide.

I want to make something very clear - nobody who did not advocate keeping Wikipedia's article Marina Ovsyannikova did so because they have a pro-censorship bias. The more likely reason is that we have a very strict policy of biographies of living people and we must make absolutely sure we get an article right before publishing it. There is never a rush or urgent requirement to create anything. As I heard from another longstanding editor : "This is a classic case of an article created too soon that was then nominated for deletion too soon". As you may be able to see from my user page, I have a strong view of wanting to end the Russian-Ukranian War, and have previously criticised propaganda when it contradicts facts and research (which is probably why I contribute to free factual projects like this one), so accusing me of pro-propaganda and pro-censorship would be off the mark.

In any case, when you have a disagreement with someone, it's best to calmly explain your position and try and understand the other side. Instead, you have lashed out at people and cried "abuse". In my view, that means you lack the appropriate temperament to contribute to a global encyclopedia project that is visited by all walks of life. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) Ritchie. I want to make clear that it is not my opinion that anyone who did not advocate keeping Wikipedia's article on Marina Ovsyannikova did so because they have a putinist pro-censorship bias. And I did not write that. My point is that the deletion tag BENEFITS Putin, not that it is put there by anyone because they sympathise with the dictator. 90% agreed with me that the article should be kept, and now it is indeed here as it should be. So respectfully, I (and others) only argued fiercely for the speedy implentation of "the right thing to do", the consensus. I did not write something hatefull, inferior or untrue. And I totally agree with you about what you write about the war.

2) I am now blocked for not knowing the rules. But I never want to break the rules. You can try to change the rules you think needs improvement, but while the rules are there you must respect them. When people told me the rules, I followed them, as you can see from this comment on the administrators noticeboard March 23 16.10, but also on the Marina article (when Levivich 23:33, 14 March 2022 tells me its is against the rules to edit, I disagree, but I comply). So I do not break the rules. And I dont call people names. I wrote "I think again Floquenbeam is bordering on misusing his privileges here", which is my honest opinion. But when Floquenbeam called me a "jerk", HE "lack the appropriate temperament". And now he calls me a "liar" and a "troll". He does so when he argues that I indeed KNOWINGLY broke the rules. He writes:

>>To be clear, "I didnt know that I could not write on Ponyos page" is demonstrably not true. They objected, on my talk page, to my very clear message that they couldn't reinstate that post. This is not a misunderstanding, it is a lie. Misunderstanding = newbie who needs advice/guidance. Lying = troll who needs to be shown the door. I'll leave it to someone uninvolved to see how long we tolerate a troll here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC) <<

This is really the point here. Floquenbeam - after he called me a jerk - suddenly tells me that he did not want my sound reply at his his talk page. That is true. But he or anyone else did NOT tell me that it was against the rules to put it there. I believed that when he did not want my comment on his page it was because it shows that he was wrong (in calling me a jerk). I did NOT know that it was against the rules to put it there, because nobody told me that you to a large degree are allowed to control what other people write about you on your talk page. So he is wrong in what he writes above. He argues that I need to be shown the door because I KNOWINGLY broke the rule by reinstating the post, and that I lie about it. That he needs to prove, or the blocking should be revoked. HansClumsy (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi HansClumsy, I hope you don't mind a word from me, as I've just happened upon this discussion. There's just one thing that I would like to make clear... whether we think something might or might not benefit Vladimir Putin is absolutely not a valid criterion for decisions made about Wikipedia content (and, in the context of the war in Ukraine, a tag on a Wikipedia article is utterly insignificant). If you want my personal view, I think Vladimir Putin is a war criminal and I would love to see him brought to justice. But the best (and only) thing we should do in terms of Wikipedia content is to approach the subject dispassionately, and factually document what is supported by reliable sources from a neutral point of view in line with our vitally important policies on notability and due coverage. Any attempt to slant content towards righting wrongs is wrong, however evil the wrong we might wish to right. That is just not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Anyway, I hope this might help you to craft a successful unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, and thanks for commenting on my original point about the tags. I believe that the rules on wikipedia are mostly sound rules made founded in reason so as your argument and the links and references that you provide. And I agree with most of what you say. But sometimes rules are made, and a situation evolves where they need upgrading. I would recommend instead of a red warning tag "article is up for deletion" that in cases like this a yellow or green tag is placed stating "nobility under review" giving the impression, that what is in this article is not wrong, but time only have to show if XX is relevent enough to keep her own article, but for now she is. I believe the purpose of encyclopedias are here to spread something close to the truth based on mainstream knowledge. Those who dont want this, they want deleted articles, red flags, doubts an so on. And I agree, Wiki's tags policy is insignificant to the outcome of the war, so this is not about wikipedia declaring war on Russia. This is in my opinion about making wikipedia fulfilling its purpose instead of involuntarily that of those who dont want it to. HansClumsy (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia rules are there to be reviewed and modified as the community decides. But that has to be done by prior discussion and consensus, and we can't unilaterally decide not to follow a rule in cases were we don't think it should apply. (Yes, I know we have WP:Ignore all rules, but once we make a bold move and it's reverted, we have to stop and not engage in an edit war to push through a change.) And casting aspersions on those we get pushback from is very much the wrong approach... I mean, "Apparatchiks rules" (<cringey face>)? Ponyo is one of our fairest and least politically biased admins. Anyway, I would encourage you to seek consensus at WP:Village pump (policy) for your ideas (with a warning that you might not succeed, given how long current AFD policy has been established). Your motives here have clearly been honourable, but you just went about things the wrong way. If you make an unblock request that recognises that, I would support an unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am okay with unblocking (and I assume that Floquenbeam is too) if Boing! said Zebedee believes it is in the best interests of the project to do so. I think the problem here is you have got mixed up with arguments with other editors, and given the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you are someone who digs in and refuses to listen. The best advice I can give you is this - sometimes it is better to just walk away from a discussion and forget about it. If another admin came onto my talk page and started lecturing me, if I didn't believe it would harm the encyclopedia to not respond, I won't. The main focus here should always be towards writing and improving articles. The other advice I can offer is that political and current affairs topics tend to be some of the most contentious and fought over, and if you look at relatively important but neglected articles instead, you can find that there's wide latitude to allow improvements. You can get an idea of how much interest from other editors an article has by clicking on "Page information" in the left hand menu and looking at the "Number of page watchers who visited recent edits" figure. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What you write sounds reasonable to me. It is not enough that your motives are honourable, you also have to go about things the right way. Apparatichiks rules was indeed over the line. But I'm an honest man so apart from recognizing that, I also have to say that me critizing the strict implementation of rules in an overly agitated way is different from calling someone a "jerk" a "liar and a "troll", when in fact I was obviously not at all lying. And Im the one blocked. If me having this opinion disqualifies me from being unblocked, then no big harm done and I honestly wish you guys all the best. HansClumsy (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ritchie333: Since you pinged me, I'll give my opinion, but it should be viewed thru the lens of my gut feeling this is a returning troll. Which I cannot prove, so was not a rationale for my partial block (and before I get sucked into this further on a false premise of ADMINACCT, I'll point out to others reading this that I didn't site block myself), but it does affect who I chose to spend my free time thinking about and giving advice to. I think it does not matter if we unblock or not, they'll just return with a new account to stir up more trouble. So it won't be productive pinging me to this discussion anymore. Others may disagree, and spend their time providing information on the left-hand menu and NPOV and how to walk away from a dispute; but I don't think that's productive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]