User talk:Oktayey

June 2017

Welcome!

Hello, Oktayey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to continue. Some useful pages to visit are:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. We're so glad you're here! 7&6=thirteen (☎)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 12:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Right-wing" citation needed in mosque shooting article

You posted this elsewhere: I reverted you and will answer here. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Could I have a link to any particular article that states the attacker was on the right wing? Oktayey (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was a white nationalist. White nationalism is right wing. The sky is blue. Also [1], [2]. Whether the term is necessary or not, you may discuss that on the talk page. But the very fact that you seem to doubt that white nationalism belongs on the right (really not even the far right anymore, it could be argued) means that maybe it should be included. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
White nationalism is alt-right, not right wing. They are separate. --Oktayey (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Your recent editing history at Christchurch mosque shootings 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 BRD 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated a contentious topic. 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.

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste I have clearly articulated on the talk page how my edits are perfectly in line with Wikipedia's standards, and received no rebuttal. How can you argue that no consensus exists if no objections are raised!? Oktayey (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that people stop replying to you because they find you draining to interact with, and not because they suddenly agree with you? That is certainly the case with me. I feel you have a tendency to restate you arguments ad nauseam without attempting to understand others' positions. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste Frankly, somebody finding reading my explaination of how an article violates guidelines beyond a shadow of a doubt "draining" isn't my problem. If consensus is required to make a change, refusing to engage in discourse challenging the consensus may as well be called stonewalling. You can't have Bold, Revert, Discuss without DISCUSSION. Oktayey (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was discussion. Do not conflate people not agreeing with you with people not understanding you. People grow tired of arguing with you when you refuse to budge in the face of a consensus that you are wrong. Please, if you find yourself all alone defending your viewpoint, consider that maybe it is your interpretation of policy that is flawed or just not the generally accepted one. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste Don't give me that. When somebody proves me wrong, I concede—you can even see examples of that in that very talk page. However, I've clearly rebutted the objections to my edits and shown that they help bring the article in line with policy. I refuse to budge in the face of the consensus, yet the consensus refuses to budge in the face of the guidelines written in black and white.

Also, quit trying to convince me I'm alone! There are comments from at least a couple others on that talk page that take my side. Oktayey (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll leave you alone now. You really should stop reverting that article so much, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior around Gays Against Groomers

Your editing in this topic is becoming disruptive, specifically the WP:IDHT behavior and bludgeoning discussions. At some point, normally when repeating the same arguments becomes the norm in multiple discussions, you should step back accept the status quo until you have new sources, there has been a shift in coverage, or something else has changed. Consensus can seldom be changed by arguing the same points over and over. It's a big encyclopedia, some times it's best to realize consensus is against your position and focus on something else. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish I cannot deny that I restated my arguments to an excruciating degree, but I insist it was justified. I understand it would be disruptive to ceaselessly demand that a change be made while lacking a rational basis, but my arguments simply weren't being addressed. Surely the status quo can't be shielded by effectively stonewalling, thus requiring a dissenting editor to repeat themself? What good is a consensus if challenges to it made in good faith are not heard? Oktayey (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The challenges are heard, but a consensus of editors disagrees with you. I suggest you peruse these threads, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1121#Bludgeoning and edit warring by Newimpartial, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1122#WP:SEALIONING at Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign), and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1122#Personal attacks, canvassing and wikihounding by Wes sideman and then think about your current approach. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. I don't know where I got this idea, but I was under the misapprehension that WP:BLUDGEON was simply about dismissing all refutation and tirelessly repeating defeated arguments. I didn't know it regarded the quantity of messages, instead of just their substance.

I'm now glad I questioned my understanding of the rule and checked it out instead of continuing on—I apologize. I'm a bit troubled by my earlier thought now, however:

Doesn't prohibiting editors from restating any argument repeatedly just make stonewalling a definite way to nullify any dispute? Oktayey (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're being stonewalled by multiple other editors who do not agree with your arguments it's generally called a "consensus." If you think that there is support for your position your best bet is to move on from the arguing phase and begin WP:RFCBEFORE, and formulate an RFC to invite wider community input, and be prepared to accept the result. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so disputes are ultimately decided by essentially a vote? Doesn't that open up a window for abuse by highly opinionated groups to brute-force unreasonable proposals into effect? Oktayey (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's specifically not a vote, where if the result isn't obvious someone uninvolved will assess the discussion, strength of policy based arguments, and close it with a statement. Numerical support matters, but so do policy based arguments.

I guess the other option is everyone thinks they're right and they argue the same points forever. I'll take the RFC system, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Although I feel like I should've already known this, thank you for filling me in! Oktayey (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, your behavior at Gays Against Groomers has clearly crossed into disruptive editing. Comments like these do not build towards consensus, and the majority of activity at the talk page has become back and forths with your repetitive objections. You don't appear to be taking any of the advice other users have given you, and you continue to edit the mainspace against consensus. Please slow down. You're free to disagree with other editors and bring up your concerns, but when you monopolize a talk page, you seriously hinder the process of writing an encyclopedia. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 19:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. All I'm trying to do is get explanations for why things are, in my perception, wrong. I don't care whether it is eventually resolved through my perception changing, or the article changing—I just need resolution.

As for the reply you linked, how is that even remotely disruptive? The editor who responded to me missed the point of my comment, so I simply informed them of such.

Finally, I'm fairly certain the edits I've been making don't require consensus. I've gone to the talk page after every reversion to discuss it, per WP:BRD. You're making it sound like I've been edit-warring. Oktayey (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The single edit is not disruptive, even though you're dismissing a source without reason, or providing another RS. However, taken together with all your other edits, you've turned the talk page into your personal forum. Of the last 500 edits on the talk page, you've made 73. That percentage of edits isn't disruptive per se, but it appears you're trying to right some great wrong, and keep repeating the same arguments regarding sources. see WP:LISTEN, WP:REHASH and WP:RGW 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 19:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must ask: Have you not noticed that I haven't been pushing the same edit for all this time? The pages you linked seem only to concern editors incessantly trying to ram the same exact change through, suggesting that you aren't aware that I'm approaching many different parts of the article. Oktayey (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's like the 3RR rule. You don't need to revert the same material for the rule to apply, and walking up to the line is effectively the same as crossing the line. Just because you're moving goal posts doesn't mean your edits are constructive. From WP:LISTEN Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may be disruptive and time-wasting, especially if they can't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 20:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "moving the goalposts"? Really? People said I was bludgeoning when I pressed long and hard for one change, and now you're saying I'm "moving the goalposts" for moving on to other issues?

As for the rest of your message, it's all under the presumption that I'm the one in the wrong. I'd be totally willing to make amends if it can be proven, but you can't assert that simply because someone's in the apparent minority, they *must* be wrong. Oktayey (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zaathras (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blugdeon

Read wp:bludgeon and WP:JUSTDROPIT. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and I don't think they say what you think they say. WP:BLUDGEON concerns an editor dominating a discussion, overwhelming other editors through a disproportionate quantity of messages. WP:JUSTDROPIT concerns reopening discussions that have already come to a conclusion. Oktayey (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have (it seems to me) replied to almost every post, and you did reopen a discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since my warning from a month ago, I've been careful to engage in only one message thread at a time (I still don't get why WP:BLUDGEON should apply to honest and genuine attempts at discourse), and I'm pretty sure I didn't revive a discussion that had no remaining room for argument. Oktayey (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about being disruptive in discussions is that everyone thinks they're contributing constructively. Sometimes you need to listen to the other people involved and step away for a while. It's a big encyclopedia, and there's plenty to do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oktayey I was the one who put up the NPOV tag a few months ago I haven't really been following it as much since then, though I know a number of trusted editors have done a lot of work in finding more WP:RS. You clearly are not one of them and I am really stunned by your behavior. Calling your conduct on that talk page "disruptive" is an understatement. If you need another person to tell you to WP:DROPTHESTICK, count me in. Ppt91 ^talk 22:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the outside, I know this looks like a guy with plugged ears making a ruckus and shouting at people "The sky is green! The sky is green!", but please hear me out.

I totally understand that this situation makes me look terrible at first glance, but I'm in essence being stonewalled, whether deliberately or not. I now realize that an RFC would've avoided this nightmare, but I just kept putting it off by telling myself, "Oh, I'm almost there! I know what to write that will clear this all up!" Oktayey (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being stonewalled. Many editors have read and fairly considered your arguments, only a couple have actually found them convincing. Despite this, you continue to belabour the same points that other editors are not finding convincing. There's only so many ways that editors like myself can tell you that your arguments aren't persuasive without engaging in bludgeoning ourselves, and as our feedback on your earlier points has seemingly been ignored or dismissed we chose not to repeatedly answer with remarks like "we've already discussed this point in [this section] on [this date]". Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know what to write that will clear this all up! is the biggest trap on Wikipedia. It's almost never true. If after a week or two you don't see consensus proceed to drafting an RFC. Make the RFC as simple and concise as possible, and reach out for assistance if you need it. If you do see a consensus, even if it's against your position then respect it. If consensus is against your position it doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means that consensus is against you and it's time to move on.

Also, protip: don't argue using a source that is in the process of being downgraded at WP:RSN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okatayey, I’m not sure you’re getting it: if you don’t cease bludgeoning a point that has been refuted, repeatedly, civilly, by multiple respectable users, then you will be blocked. That is how it works. So please go back to editing literally anything else like I know you’ve done for years with minimal controversy. Dronebogus (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I've reverted your restoration at ANI, sorry, but I see the confusion. It was already unarchived once before by Adoring nanny, but they didn't delete the initially archived version. Then, when it was formally closed by Sandstein and archived again, there were two copies in the archive - one unclosed and one closed. DanCherek (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Hello

Hello! I wanted to give you a friendly hand-shake. Might I suggest you make a user page? It will remove the red link from your name on talk pages. I don't recommend putting any personal information on there (I'm surprised when people put a whole bunch about themselves!) but removing the red link helps people take you seriously on talk page. Second, I've got a bunch of links on my user page you might find useful. I haven't found one page that links all the guidelines lines and policies yet, but it does help to learn them if you can. I would also like to suggestion you take a turn through Articles for Deletion WP:AfD. I've spent some time there, and there are not enough editors providing feedback right now, so things are being relisted several times to build a consensus. The idea is that you do not "vote" - to keep or delete an article. Rather, the closer looks at the arguements, and users who use guidelines and explain their point of view to others have more weight. Sometimes "yes" and "no" is is ignored all together if there is no explanation. But just reading the discussions, and thinking through them, will help you understand a lot more about Wikipedia guidelines. You make good arguments, so I think you might enjoy doing that - just take my advice and leave a comment, do NOT watch the page, and move on to the next. I'd love to see more people dedicated to building "good" articles up rather then keeping them start-level forever. Denaar (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for reaching out!

Honestly, I've deliberately avoided making a user page for this long out of stubbornness. "What's the point?", I told myself. I'd assumed that the red name does makes a poorer first impression, but I wanted to "prove a red-named editor could be respected", or some pretentious crap like that. Now that you've got me to my senses, though, I think I'll finally make a user page.

As for AfD, I'll check it out. Thanks again, and see you around! Oktayey (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

you are banned from any pages relating to gender issues for 30 days or 100 edits on other topics, whichever is longer.

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing after multiple warnings

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, if you do 100 normal edits to other topics in 2 weeks, your tb can be lifted after 30 days. If by 30 days you haven't made those edits, your tb can be lifted once you have. You can tell me when you think it can be lifted or one of the other editors you've been in contact with recently. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the September 11 attacks. This is a standard message to inform you that the September 11 attacks is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message isn't to be given to every user every time they get involved in a contentious topic, is it? Oktayey (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can be given to any user once they enter a contentious area. Shame it can’t be done automatically. But users can add their own alerts to show they are aware. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]