User talk:Ergglebergglrflorg

Sockpuppet investigation

Please note that a sockpuppet investigation has been requested concerning your account. If this was done in error, you are welcome to add your defense against these claims on the investigation page. Woko Sapien (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and investigate me, ban me, or whatever. It is this sort of active offensive measures taken against my page and contributions which provoked me to allege that you were engaged in censorship. I apologized because you acted reasonably for a brief while afterwards, but then you amped up the harassment. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Who 'tarziquial' is, I have no idea. But you are more familiar with editing on Wikipedia than I am and I'm sure you can do more to censor me on this platform, regardless of how baseless the grounds for the investigations are. This my friends, is how narratives are controlled and any departure from a military-industrial complex consensus is stifled. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Civility notice

I just wanted to say that I found your tone in last night's conversation highly inappropriate, which is especially troubling considering that a contentious topic requires the utmost civility. In six years on this website, I don't think I've ever encountered dialogue as aggressive as that. I tried in good faith to make suggestions for your material to be more neutral and encyclopedic, to which you accused me of dogmatic censorship. Asking me about my personal politics was WAY out of line, and I will never be spoken to that way again!

Is that clear?

I acknowledge that you did later apologize for the remark. However, for my own personal safety, I have notified administrators of the conversation. Hopefully, we can find greater collaboration going forward. Woko Sapien (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see my thoughts on the noticeboard related to this issue. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"However for my own personal safety"

You repeatedly removed my comments, reverted my comments, despite me sourcing them, and I asserted that your behavior bordered on vandalism. I then asked why you were doing it, if it was in good faith, or if you were committed to censorship. Then apologized. After which, you reverted most of what I said, and are now claiming your safety is being threatened.

I never threatened your safety, and implying that I did is itself hostile and "WAY out of line". Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to clear the air on a few issues:

1. You're correct that there was never any threat of violence, nor did I say there was one. I simply take my anonymity (and by extension, personal safety) very seriously. So when I'm hectored about disclosing my political affiliations in a needlessly combative tone, I can get defensive, as I did.
2. Major reversions to your contributions have been done by other editors too, not just me alone.
3. The sockpuppet investigation request was incidental and precautionary. I was concerned that another account (Tzaquiel) - who had been temporarily banned for edit-warring earlier - was creating new accounts to skirt the rules. Your account happened to be created right as another suspicious account (Mensch0011) began making similar edits. I apologize for catching you in the dragnet by mistake.

This may not bury the hatchet (as a shill for the military-industrial complex, we aren't always the most popular of folks), but I figured I should say my piece at a minimum. Like I said, I hope we can find greater collaboration going forward. Cheers! Woko Sapien (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Abecedare (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

What vandalism is and isn't

Hi, Ergglebergglrflorg. In talk page discussions on contentious topics, tempers sometimes flare. I don't want to address any of the actual discussion topics that took place recently at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign that you participated in, but I do want to note that it is a highly contentious topic, and point out that on three occasions at the disussion on § Interviews as Primary Sources you accused your interlocutor of vandalism (here, here, here). Please don't do that. In Wikipedia parlance, that term means something very specific—please see WP:VANDALISM, paying special attention to the fourth paragraph of the lead, and to section § What is not vandalism. Regardless how much you disagree with what another editor is saying or doing, if they are trying to improve the article—even if they are miserably failing to do so and even if the are making the article much worse—it is not "vandalism". In particular, incorrectly reverting something might be a content disagreement, it might be edit warring, or it might be something else, but it's not vandalism.

Secondly, actual vandalism really is a thing, and if you think you see it, then that is a user behavioral issue, and the right way to deal with it is by starting a section at the user's talk page and raising the question as neutrally as possible, while assuming good faith, and providing diffs as evidence of what behavior you believe is impermissible or suspect. Templates such as {{uw-v1}} are available to make this task easier. (If you have a problem with that or don't wish to, you can always ask an admin for help.) But an article Talk page is exclusively for discussion about how to improve the associated article; it is not the place to raise user behavioral issues. I hope this helps, and if you have any questions, your can {{Reply}} below, or raise questions at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)