GPinkerton

Welcome

Hello! I am assuming you have come over from the English Wikipedia, so you are probably familiar with the way this wiki works. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few links to help you adjust:

• An English Wikipedian's guide
• Writing in Simple English
• Simple talk: our help desk, reference desk and village pump- in one page
• How to copy from English Wikipedia

There is much to do here. For example, there are a lot of articles that do not exist yet, which you can bring over from the English Wikipedia and simplify. Do have a look around and see what you would like to do. Thank you for joining us, and you know how to contact me if you need help. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

We like and strongly encourage helpful changes to Wikipedia, but an article you created was directly copied and pasted from the main English Wikipedia. Please do not do that. Such articles are usually too complex. They need to be simplified before or immediately after being added to the Simple English Wikipedia. In addition, be sure to include attribution on the article's talk page. Thank you. Try to read the links I had given you and simplify further before adding. Please note that we are a different wiki from en, and our audience is ESL learners. Please write in a simple manner that they can understand. You may start user-space drafts if needed. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: Hi and thanks! Please look again at my edits, since they are not copied and pasted from English Wikipedia; I spent quite a while trying to "translate" the English wiki's equivalent, sentence by sentence, trying to match the Ronald Regan article for the reading level, but I suppose it's still too advanced. I'll have another go using those links. Thanks. GPinkerton (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. You might want to use BE 1500 - these are the words we use here. Happy editing! —Belwine (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Belwine: Thanks, I will. I guess there isn't an automatic way of highlighting words not on the list? GPinkerton (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a way to do that, sorry. —Belwine (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Belwine: Thanks anyway; I found one off Wiki though: [1]. One question: the verbs "to die" and "to bury" aren't the list. ("Death" is ...) How can they be avoided?

If you add words that aren't Simple English, just add a link to the Simple English Wiktionary or to a page here. You can use [[:wikt:WORD]] or [[WORD]] for this. —Belwine (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Belwine, Camouflaged Mirage would you mind looking at my newest edit on Rojava? I tried again to simplify and conform to the MoS so I'd be glad of a quick review to check I'm doing the right thing from someone that knows what they're doing. GPinkerton (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's pretty simple, I'm happy with that. —Belwine (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I realize I'm a little late to this conversation, but I'd like to recommend not linking to Wiktionary, for the following reasons:

• It makes the reader have to go to another website, which interrupts the process of reading.
• If the term in question is one that could be an actual article in the future, being linked to Wiktionary instead of being redlinked would prevent that use from being linked to that future article.
• In most cases, there's a way to say things more simply instead of using a complex word. That's preferable because it results in simpler language, which is the mission of this wiki. If we link to Wiktionary instead of using simpler language, we are not fulfilling that mission. If you can't find a simpler word, ask someone to help.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Complex language

I notice in your edits on Britons (Celtic people) a huge increase in complexity. The complexity comes partly from the more complex sentence structure and the more complex vocabulary. In my opinion, it is essential that you rethink the way you are editing our pages. I understand perfectly that when an editor has special interests, these interests tend to drive their motivation. Often the result is a page which is unsuitable for most or at least many of our readers. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Macdonald-ross: I'm not sure what you mean by "special interests" but I will look again at the sentence structure. Besides the foreign words, complex words I can see are "spelling" and "borrowed"; what others are there?GPinkerton (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

Please remember to take these off once you are done changing. They should not stay on forever. --Belwine (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey GPinkerton

		The Minor Barnstar
		I watch the work you do on articles. Although they are minor, they are needed and make a huge impact on the quality of our articles!

PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 20:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb: Thanks!

Demi Levato

Once you reverted my edits on there I was confused, but then I read that she identified as trans, and I realized. I thought the IP address was fixing stuff, so I joined to help, I was unaware until I read that section. My apologies! Mwiqdoh (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a bit confusing. GPinkerton (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

February 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from changing Wikipedia in line with Wikipedia's blocking policy for WP:ONESTRIKE. If you think this block is unfair, you may ask to be unblocked by adding {{unblock|your reason here}} below. If you cannot do this or the reason is private, please send an e-mail to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org and an administrator will look at your reason and reply. You may want to read our guide to unblock requests before asking to be unblocked. Operator873 ^connect 22:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I've chosen to block you on this project under the WP:ONESTRIKE policy as you seem to be resuming activity on this project that resulted in your community ban on the English Wikipedia. I'm willing to engage in discussion if you have comments to make regarding the block, but I'm not willing to engage in the same behavior you've demonstrated on other projects. Operator873 ^connect 22:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

GPinkerton (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

!? I have never been community banned on any project and I don't know what "activity" and what "behavior you've demonstrated on other projects" you are referring to? Could you explain what you are getting at and why you have blocked me?

Decline reason:

I feel Operator873 has adequately addressed some of the questions above. In an unblock request please explain why you want to be unblocked. In my opinion, you havent given a reason to unblock in this request. --Ferien (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

GPinkerton (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It's not a community ban, it's an Arbitration Committee action. However, it still leaves you subject to WP:ONESTRIKE here on Simple English Wikipedia. Operator873 ^connect 22:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Operator873: Your edit summary here appears to be an unjustified personal attack. What are you referring to when you claim "This editor has POV pushing issues cross wiki. This edit is same behavior" What "POV pushing issues cross wiki" are you talking about? This is a serious allegation whose substance which appears to have influenced the block you have placed on me, so should be substantiated or withdrawn. Your blocking summary similarly contains glaring errors of this sort: "POV pushing similar to conduct on enwiki which resulted in community ban". But I was never accused of POV-pushing and never community banned, so it's difficult to understand why you have chosen to block me for "similar ... conduct". Can you spell out what and where you think I have done wrong? What have I violated? GPinkerton (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps review the Arbitration Case I linked above? Or review your CentralAuth page for more information as you're blocked on 4 other projects. You should also review the WP:ONESTRIKE policy for why you're blocked on this project. As I stated before, I will not engage in this behavior with you. I'll allow another sysop to review your block and act as they see fit. Operator873 ^connect 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Operator873: neither of those explain your actions, namely blocking me for ... what exactly? Your summaries suggest "POV pushing" but where? when? what evidence is there of this anywhere? There is certinaly none in the ArbCom case and none in WP:ONESTRIKE. Please spell out what you are choosing to block me for and why you have chosen to do so. GPinkerton (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Ferien: What is going on here? Can you explain why you declined my unblock request and why you think I should be blocked? GPinkerton (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

What am I supposed to have done wrong? Why am I blocked? GPinkerton (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason I declined was because you didnt give a clear reason to be unblocked. In an unblock request you need to make clear either what you've done wrong/what you will do to improve or why the block is flawed and I don't feel you did either, hence I declined. --Ferien (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ferien: In this case there is no reason for me to be blocked, and so there seems no point in furnishing reason why I should not be blocked. GPinkerton (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

GPinkerton (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

Operator873's block is unexplained and misguided and should never have been applied. Despite Operator873's unsubstantiated assertions in their blocking summary, I have never been community banned anywhere, and have never been accused of POV pushing. Now, Operator873 has chosen to block me for reasons Operator873 has not explained. As such, I should be unblocked, since blocks are intended to prevent disruption, and since Operator873 has not been able or willing to explain how or why this block is intended to prevent disruption, it should be removed as unexplained and unjustified. Operator873 could helpfully explain why they believe their actions are justified, but not having done so upon repeated request, it would appear no such explanation exists and that Operator873 must have been mistaken, as indeed they have admitted. Since Ferien has declined my earlier unblock request, perhaps Ferien can shed some light on why Operator873 might have made the decision they have made or why they believe Operator873's block might be justified, or, if that is not the case, why Ferien declined my request? Can anyone see an actual POV issue somewhere? Or is this not simply a mistaken and punitive block on Operator873's part?

Decline reason:

This has been going on since at least 2020 when the user was topic banned from editing topics on "Islam and post-632 CE middle east". Much of the dispute here revolved around Syrian Kurdistan. Fast forward to 2021, the user was indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia by ArbCom after another dispute on the same topic. AbrCom found "GPinkerton has a history of disruptive editing in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area and elsewhere. This pattern includes edit-warring and personalizing disputes." Given the fact that this Wikipedia does have the one strike rule, it would seem to me that somebody in this situation who wished to continue to edit would steer far clear of any topics that could be related or tie back to the ban. That is not what has happened. In my opinion, this edit alone is enough for a block. This is a direct continuation of the type of behaviour that has led to multiple years of ANI discussions, topic bans, blocks, and bans. This is what the One strike rule was designed to prevent from happening on this Wikipedia. To be completely honest, I think I would be approving this request for unblock if the user had simply started a talk page discussion instead of going right to reverting. That would at least show some signs of growth. Again, not what happened. In reading the discussions on this talk page, it feels as if the user wishes to re-hash the discussions that have already happened on EN. I for one, am not interested in such a discussion. In closing, I find the block to be justified per our OneStrike policy and I will not be lifting it. -- Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 05:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

As an involved administrator from early on, this is merely an observation. You are currently indefinitely blocked from 4 other projects. On both the English and Spanish Wikipedias, the manner in which you communicate with other users has been brought up as a concern. In fact, if one reviews the unblock requests at Spanish Wikipedia, that discussion was very similar to the discussion happening here, and you were also in disputes on talk pages there just like you were here. At Simple English Wikipedia, we use our reciprocal blocking policy for users who are indefinitely blocked elsewhere. While your changes on this project have been on the whole very productive, there have been issues with how you make changes. To quote enWP's ArbCom's findings in the Kurds/Kurdistan case, "GPinkerton has a history of disruptive editing. This pattern includes edit-warring and personalizing disputes for which they have been warned on several occasions by multiple administrators." You have chosen to do the same activity in this discussion, as well as here, and here. This community has little patience for users who have constantly been disruptive and have not changed their behavior over time, and from your history over several years at multiple projects, this appears to be the case. While I appreciate your work on this project, I believe that there is enough evidence to support a ONESTRIKE block. Griff (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Griffinofwales: I am blocked indefinitely (as of now) on this Wikipedia (at Operator873's choice) and on English Wikipedia. I also removed some hoax images from Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia and Georgian Wikipedia; you are welcome to review the wholly arbitrary indefinite blocks given to me on those wikis. This does not explain your (inaccurate) claim that "You are currently indefinitely blocked from 4 other projects" (a similar claim was used to justify my block on Spanish Wikipedia) and it does not explain why Operator873 has chosen to block me today. I do not see what relevance your links have; neither is recent and neither demonstrates anything like the "POV" mentioned in Operator873's blocking summary, and indeed, in your edit summary on Arab Belt. Where is this "POV" you are seeing? How have I been "constantly disruptive"? Where is this "disruption" and how is it "constant" as you seem to suggest? Can you point to an actual POV issue somewhere, as requested above and as alleged in your edit summary? You cite ONESTRIKE, but this policy says: " It is made to stop disruptive users, who have a history of making bad changes, from disrupting this project." I do not "have a history of making bad changes", I am not a "disruptive user", and I am not "disrupting this project". So how can such a block possibly apply? If you disagree, can you explain what "bad changes" and how it is that you have come to believe that they are "bad"? GPinkerton (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

---

@Gordonrox24: Can you (or anyone) explain what is wrong with the edit you mention as "alone is enough for a block"; how is it "a direct continuation of the type of behaviour that has led to multiple years of ANI discussions, topic bans, blocks, and bans"? Where is there any evidence of the "POV pushing" mentioned in the blocking rationale? Where is that mentioned anywhere? Replacing a long, stable, and thoroughly referenced article with a much shorter rewrite with poorer sourcing is a drastic step that needs to be discussed; as such I reverted it pending consensus and immediately opened a discussion on the subject. What did I do wrong? What else was I supposed to have done that I didn't do? GPinkerton (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Also, what do you mean by "To be completely honest, I think I would be approving this request for unblock if the user had simply started a talk page discussion instead of going right to reverting"? Are you saying I was blocked for the revert or for something else? GPinkerton (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to make this as simple as possible. You have a history of having editorial disputes with others on this topic. You have a ban on the English Wikipedia as a result of doing that. On this Wikipedia, you have reverted another editor on a page within this topic range because you felt it was pushing a POV. This is exactly the type of behaviour that got you in trouble at en. This is the same type of behaviour that has persisted since 2020. That you have edited with a non-neutral POV and are willing to engage in continuous and repeated disputes on this topic is known, and it has been discussed at length on EN. Similar behaviour happens here, per one strike you can be blocked for that, and that is where the discussion ends. I am now the 4th admin to look at the case, all 4 seem to agree the block should stay, and so for now it will. I suspect that should you continue to request unblock, or continue trying to litigate this case again, you will most likely loose Talk page access. My suggestion would be to not let it get to that point, come back in 6 months time, and see if anybody is willing to give you another chance.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 06:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gordonrox24: My ban on English Wikipedia resulted from my being over-nasty to racist POV-pushers, and for submitting too much evidence for ArbCom to deal with at once, not from being non-neutral (in stark contrast with everyone I reported to ArbCom in that case; all of whom ArbCom banned explicitly as POV-pushers). ArbCom absolutely did not sanction me for being non-neutral or because there was any evidence whatsoever of any non-neutral editing. There is no mention of that anywhere. To be clear, the "similar behaviour happens here" you refer to is what exactly? The revert? The edit summary? What? GPinkerton (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I am probably not a qualified to even talk here or give an opinion, but

If there are four admins saying that they agree with your block, there is nothing you can say to make them stop. I'm not saying that this is fair or unfair, but you're at a point where, really, anything you say is going to push you deeper into a hole. I feel bad for you but there is nothing you can say to change their mind. Please, for your sake, don't push your luck. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 06:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@MrMeAndMrMe: At the risk of being punished further, I count: one blocking admin whose blocking rationale is self-confessedly erroneous (Operator873), one heavily involved admin whose undiscussed mass deletions and unexplained claims of POV I reverted (Griff), and two admins answering an unblock request (Ferien and Gordonrox24) of whom only one (Gordonrox24) has expressed any opinion on the block. I don't think that really adds up. No-one seems willing to demonstrate anything of mine to substantiate anything approaching the supposed "POV pushing" alleged by Griff and used by Operator873 as the faulty blocking rationale. No-one appears to believe they can show I have added anything incorrect or non-neutral anywhere, which is why it seems odd to me that "POV pushing" is being used to justify blocking me here since it is obviously wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

GPinkerton (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

I should not be blocked and I should not have been blocked. I have been accused of "POV pushing" and, wrongly assuming I had done this (now or in the past), Operator873 blocked me indefinitely for reverting Griff's dramatic edits to a well-sourced and neutral article and then immediately beginning a discussion about it, even though this is perfectly normal and in no way justifies the accusation and indefinite block. Despite my having immediately opened a discussion about this revert and without having any time to evaluate the merits of the content, Operator873 decided I had violated ONESTRIKE, which is not at all the case. There is no rule or principle that suggests I should not edit articles which relate to the good work I have done on other wikis. There is no evidence I have ever done any non-neutral work on any Wikipedia, still less on this one. I should not be blocked, I have not edited non-neutrally (here or elsewhere), no-one has been able to furnish any evidence of my having done so, I have not violated ONESTRIKE, and I followed the usual procedure of reverting bold edits and opening a discussion. I make this request even though I have been threatened that I may be further punished for doing so; I do not believe any of my actions justify this block I do not believe there is any risk of disruption in the case of an unblock. I have not violated NPOV and I have not violated ONESTRIKE and I should not be blocked. I recognize that administrative actions taken against me on other wikis has influenced admins' attitudes here, but I cannot stress enough that the characterizations expressed here are wrong. I have never violated NPOV and I have certainly never violated ONSTRIKE. I hope I can demonstrate that I do not disrupt the project by being unblocked and continuing not to do so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GPinkerton (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have continued the disruptive editing that got you blocked on other projects, and that makes you subject to ONESTRIKE. This, in my opinion, is where that discussion ends. Until this is acknowledged, an unblock is not likely to be entertained. I will also note that these unblock requests will not be tolerated indefinitely, and if you continue to make similar ones that reject any disruptive editing taking place on your part then you will likely lose talk page access. --IWI (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: disruptive editing how? What edit is disruptive and why? GPinkerton (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

POV pushing. --IWI (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: what POV did I push and where? This a shocking and upsetting accusation that I believe is completely without foundation. In what edit and in what way can this accusation be justified? In what article have I violated NPOV and how? No-one seems able to identify what I have done wrong, only repeating the vague accusation of "POV pushing" first made, completely unsubstantiated and still unexplained, by Griff, and repeated by the blocking admin. Where have I written something wrong? GPinkerton (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Because we're not going to discuss that with you; if you cannot accept you edited disruptively (which five admins have all agreed you did, independently), then there is nothing to discuss. --IWI (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Am I supposed to make an open confession to any and all disruption? If no-one can identify what I did to justify accusations of disruption, how is it disruption? It should be fairly easy to tell someone why they are blocked, but instead all that has happened here is admins repeating each others' vague, unsubstantiated accusations of "POV pushing", without being able to back this with any evidence of my having done so anywhere. If there is no evidence of disruption, there is no disruption. If there is no evidence of my having pushed a POV (which?) then it must be true that I have not done so. If there is nothing to discuss, there is no reason for me to be blocked and no reason for racism on the project. GPinkerton (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

After reviewing this as an uninvolved admin, I see 2 or 3 different links to npov issues from previous admins listed above and seeing ongoing project disruption by several unblock requests and continued Wiki Lawyering which in and among itself is also causing project disruption. This is your last warning, any further attempts to have this block overturned until you have the issues on the other wikis solved will result in your Talk Page Access being revoked along with the block reason added of project disruption in addition to 1 Strike. You already have lost your Talk page access on 3 other wikis we have been more than courteous to your posts and statements above, this debate about your block and the grounds of that block ends now. -- Enfcer (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Enfcer: Where are these links and what is the NPOV issue?? No-one has identified one anywhere, as far as I can tell. GPinkerton (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)