User talk: AppGoo0011

Disruptive editing

Please avoid inserting ethnicities into leads that are unsourced or poorly noted. You're aware this is against MOS and have been previously told, it's just disruptive pointless editing at this point. XeCyranium (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, didn't know it had to be sourced when it was apparent via the pictures. AppGoo0011 (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Aquillion (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

AppGoo0011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would appreciate the opportunity to be reinstated, and would agree to a broadly construed topic ban on race and ethnicity. I understand that capitalizing races/uncapitalizing races (e.g. [W/w]hite / [B/b]lack) without consensus on a per-article basis is not permitted. I feel I have more constructive edits to offer, especially in articles about technology.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I would appreciate the opportunity to be reinstated, and would agree to a broadly construed topic ban on race and ethnicity. I understand that capitalizing races/uncapitalizing races (e.g. [W/w]hite / [B/b]lack) without consensus on a per-article basis is not permitted. I feel I have more constructive edits to offer, especially in articles about technology. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would appreciate the opportunity to be reinstated, and would agree to a broadly construed topic ban on race and ethnicity. I understand that capitalizing races/uncapitalizing races (e.g. [W/w]hite / [B/b]lack) without consensus on a per-article basis is not permitted. I feel I have more constructive edits to offer, especially in articles about technology. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would appreciate the opportunity to be reinstated, and would agree to a broadly construed topic ban on race and ethnicity. I understand that capitalizing races/uncapitalizing races (e.g. [W/w]hite / [B/b]lack) without consensus on a per-article basis is not permitted. I feel I have more constructive edits to offer, especially in articles about technology. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Technology is a pretty broad topic area. What aspects of technology? 331dot (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Mobile Wallets and payment systems. Please see my edits to Google Wallet, Google Pay, Apple Wallet, and Apple Pay. AppGoo0011 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, I would like to see much more acknowledgement and self-reflection about the disruptive behavior in recent months. Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. AppGoo, knowing what you want to edit is only part of this. Agreeing to a topic ban is a start, but you are going to have to convince us that after barely a half hour you've seen the light here. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:RACECAPS states that either white/black or White/Black are acceptable. After reading that, I began to change some articles. Then I was told I had to wait for a consensus on each article. So I made various Talk page topics that stated my desired changes. Some agreed on all caps, some agreed on mixed caps, and some went nowhere. The ones that went nowhere were then mass reverted, so I presumed I broke a rule of creating too many Talk page entries and ceased. I then moved into inserting race and elaborating on quotations where I thought they could be needed. I was then told that this is unacceptable editing as well. I was previously used to the way I edit my technology articles, where edits are very rarely contested, nor am I ever summoned to a Talk page. So it seems I am incapable of understanding the various rules that come with mentioning race or ethnicity in an article, and I think my edits of articles featuring technology are more appreciated and presumably break no rules, so I would like to continue with those edits only. AppGoo0011 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) IMHO, you also need to stop using the terms evident and self-evident. I think this is at the heart of your difficulties here. We have an article WP:BLUE which states that you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. But the times that you have used it were not actually self-evident and needed sourcing. Actually, they could have been incorrect -- which means they were incorrect to state. The Universe is complex and nuance exists everywhere. We do need to show our homework instead of making declarations of WP:TRUTH . O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find the feedback above disingenuous and misleading. It does not explain why the editor disregarded the crystal clear advice they received at ANI in February. It does not address the inaccurate and misleading edit summaries. It does not address the unacceptable original research of racially categorizing people based on looking at a photo online. Most importantly, it does not explain the editor's disruptive focus on racial issues. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They informed me to cease capitalizing/un-capitalizing pre-existing mentions of racial groups without consensus in February. They didn't say anything about not inserting mentions of race where there previously were none, as I hadn't made any such edits at the time. I wasn't aware new mentions of race had to be sourced. My focus on these issues are simply because I have an interest in them. The incomplete edit summaries were caused by a multitude of editors seemingly following my contributions, taking issue with each Talk topic I created, even if they had never contributed to the article before. I would've liked to have had them be comprehensive. AppGoo0011 (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although in the ANI report I only focused on edits made since the last report that related to its topic and didn't review their full history, looking over it finds similar problems in other topic areas. eg. Here they changed "she" to "he" for a transfeminine office-holder, immediately followed by adding "& alleged pedophile" to the lead of their biography without a source (though to be clear she was accused of four counts of distribution of child sexual abuse images, as the article currently says with better sourcing; but instantly dropping it in the lead, worded like that, with no source, is still eyebrow-raising.) Here they deleted a bunch of clearly-legitimate sources and made a significant change to the first sentence of an article's lead with the misleading edit summary of misspellings and improper citations. --Aquillion (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly unpersuasive. When you write I wasn't aware new mentions of race had to be sourced, that is solid evidence that you do not understand the core content policy of Verifiability, and should not edit in the topic area of race and ethnicity. Unless you convincingly demonstrate an understanding of core content policies, I do not think that you should be editing at all. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it didn't seem like new information, since all those articles already had images of the victims. I've admitted several times that I now understand that it was new information, and new information should always be cited. AppGoo0011 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said above "I wasn't aware new mentions of race had to be sourced" so you were clearly aware there is something new about what you were doing. More importantly, here's the thing. If we put aside you're limited editing back in 2011 etc, you've been a semiregular editor since mid 2020 with about 1300 edits since then. This isn't an extreme amount, but it's enough to earn you extended confirmed and that you really should understand the basics of editing here by now.

While new editors are welcome and not expected to be familiar with our policies and guidelines, they do need to be able to learn them and apply them in a reasonable fashion. An editor of your experience really should understand by now the policy of verifiability. So the fact you now have some very minor understanding of it is no reassurance for the future, since it seems way to hard for you to learn even the extreme basics.

In the previous ANI, people were saying things like "as it pertains to subtly (or not-so-subtly) pushing racism into a variety of articles", "shows a degree of insensitivity and unfamiliarity (trying to be polite) that suggests they don't belong anywhere near articles related to race" and "That statement alone should result in a WP:NOTHERE block. The user is clearly pushing an agenda." So while no one may have explicitly raised the issue of you adding race, you should have been aware that generally editors were highly concerned about your edits regarding race. As an American who is "interest in them" about issues of the race of victims and offenders, I would have expected you the be aware how controversial such issues can be way more than me (as someone who isn't even an American and doesn't take that much interest but is aware).

Yet despite all that, you thought there would be no problem with you adding the race when it was something sources were barely talking about, and you didn't even supply a source, simply because there were photos. Again, perhaps it would be okay for someone who was extremely sheltered and so was genuinely unaware there could be any problem with what they were doing and would quickly learn, but in your case, you really should have known already. So it seems that for whatever reason it's going to take way to long to learn extreme basics. Unless you can find a mentor, it's unlikely anyone will have the time to teach you every single thing you have to learn to edit here since it seems you need to learn every single thing step by step and very slowly.

I'm unconvinced a topic ban will help for two reasons. One is that because it's so difficult for you to learn how to edit here, you're still going to cause problems elsewhere. But two is that given the problems you have understanding the basics, I find it unlikely you'll be able to properly apply a broadly constructed topic ban and so will instead end up making way too many edits at the borderline if not across the line of your topic ban. IMO, you really need to do way more to convince us somehow there's now going to be rapid improvement in your editing even if all the history makes this seem unlikely.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, like what? Would you like to critique any of the pages I've made or edits I've performed on articles that reference technology? Those are the only pages I wish to retain editing privileges to.

AppGoo0011 (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]