User talk:Where is Matt?

Welcome!

Hello, Where is Matt?, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 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.
You have recently made edits related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. This is a standard message to inform you that governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues 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. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Any good faith edit made on BLP grounds, and WP:NPF is part of BLP, requires an affirmative talk page consensus to restore per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Please do not edit-war material regarding BLP issues, you must seek an affirmative consensus for the edit before restoring it when it is reverted. Thanks. nableezy - 13:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hello, I'm JPxG. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Matt Taibbi, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. jp×g 18:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert is absolutely mind boggling because it's in the same citation. You really ought to do your due diligence before reverting. Where is Matt? (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 1 November 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

If you find that an editor may have violated the edit warring policy (that being four (4) reverts to the same page in a 24-hour period), then before reporting them, you should warn them on their talk page so they are aware of the policy and their possible violation, and you should make an effort on the article talk page to discuss the issue with them and try and resolve it. Only after you've taken these two steps, with no resolution, and they've made a 4th revert, should you then report them. But instead of ANI, there is a specific board for edit war reports at WP:AN/EW. There you'll see at the top of the page information you need to know and steps you need to follow, as well as a report template for you to fill out. Hope you find this useful. - wolf 04:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"revert ninjas"

Please post all additional comments at the discussion about WP:ONUS at Wikipedia talk:V. Where is Matt? (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That essay was written fifteen years ago, which was basically the wild west, and it's an essay. Just stop calling people who disagree with your additions "revert ninjas". It really doesn't matter that you aren't singling out specific editors by name to call them that.

As an aside, coming in hot is rarely helpful in persuading others. Even if your proposal could have gained traction, you pretty much discouraged everyone reading at that discussion from open-minded consideration of it just from the section title and language. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the essay that would make it dated, but if it was dated, it should have included the template {{historical}}, but it doesn't. Where is Matt? (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to add to that, WP:NINJA does not call anyone "revert ninjas," as has been pointed out to you. Of people who revert and do not discuss, it says: They don't cultivate the anonymity of the ninja. So not ninjas then. Note that the humorous description of ninja's is all about the supposed cloak of anonymity and cover of darkness. The term you are using is entirely your own, and is ad hominem, which does seem a touch... ironic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if I used the term "edit ninja" instead of "revert ninja" everything would have been cool? Where is Matt? (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. We do not need "terms" for people, especially when used to refer to those you're complaining about in an inherently contentious discussion. Please let me know that you're understanding this, because this comment is starting to feel a bit WP:IDHT. Valereee (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need terms for behaviors. Do you have a better term than WP:NINJA for editors who don't follow Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"? That's the problem that I am trying to address. The way WP:ONUS is currently written, it gives those editors the weapon to do just that. Where is Matt? (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "coming in hot", the essay WP:HOTHEADS is full of a lot good advice (for everyone, really, not only those who come in hot). As for the idea that one is not engaging incivility by calling people names as an anonymous group instead of singling out specific editors by name, that's WP:SANCTIONGAMING, and doesn't work. You got warned by an administrator to stop doing it. You should listen. See also WP:ASPERSIONS from ArbCom: It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Note the plural in that. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, I specifically laid out what revert ninjas do (using the subjective arguments of WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA and then requiring the editor who wants to add the content to get a consensus that the content is not in violation of these subjective arguments), so I didn't really call any of the people who have reverted me "revert ninjas", since none of them used these excuses. But you would know better than me, since you spent the time scrutinizing all my edits that were reverted.

Second, had the label of "revert ninjas" that I used would have been applicable to some of the editors who reverted me, but I did not explicitly name any editor as a "revert ninja", how would that have violated WP:SANCTIONGAMING? I don't see anything in WP:SANCTIONGAMING that would have remotely applied.

Where is Matt? (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my immediate previous comment, this too feels like you are either unable or unwilling to understand what people are telling you. Valereee (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Characterizing editors who don't follow WP:DRNC as "revert ninjas who weaponize WP:ONUS" is a fair and legitimate characterization, and I fully stand by it. Calling my use of this characterization as "namecalling" is ad hominem and needs to be dropped. Where is Matt? (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(edit conflict) This discussion would be off-topic at WP:V. This discussion is not about policy. It's about your behavior. And the fact you still don't seem to understand that is concerning.

Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" is an essay, not policy, so it's not something anyone is required to follow. What is policy is ONUS, and following policy is not problematic behavior. You really don't even need to refer to editors who are following policy you disagree with to argue that policy needs to be changed: "I think requiring demonstrating consensus to continue to include content is too much of a burden. I think unilaterally removing longstanding verifiable sourced content should also require consensus."

And how about we stop talking about weaponizing, while we're at it. WP is not a battleground, it's a collaborative project, and characterizing those who disagree with you as using "weapons" against you is not really conducive to a collaborative environment.

I understand that you're new here, and that there's a steep learning curve. But the situation here is that someone is disagreeing with you about a content issue, and they're providing current policy that supports their point of view. It's fine for you to disagree with the policy, but just leave the editors following that policy out of it. It's not them you have the problem with. It's the policy, and that really has nothing to do with them. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Characterizing editors who don't follow WP:DRNC as "revert ninjas who weaponize WP:ONUS" is a fair and legitimate characterization, and I fully stand by it."

Can you elaborate on the above position? What makes the use of a derogatory characterization fair and legitimate in this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a characterization is derogatory does not mean that it's in violation of WP:CIVILITY, and that's especially true when it's not directed at an particular editor. Where is Matt? (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its a long way from not a violation of WP:CIVILITY to fair and legitimate, a very long way. How do you get there? Note that the vast majority of editors don't follow WP:DRNC, most don't even know that obscure essay exists. You also haven't explained the difference between following ONUS and weaponizing ONUS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

behavior that (I consider to be) repugnant can be characterized using derogatory terms
Ignorance about the essay is not an excuse for what (I consider to be) bad behavior
Using WP:ONUS to get the upper hand = "weaponization".

Where is Matt? (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior can be, but you are charactering editor not edits. "revert ninjas" not "ninja edits"
Essays don't need to be followed, known about, or understood. They don't carry any weight at all.
If thats the definition of weaponization then isn't following ONUS weaponizing it as it inherently gives one side the upper hand?

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that if I used the term "Ninja type edits", as opposed to "revert ninjas" everything would be cool?
Apparently you're not following my logic. I'm saying that if we re-wrote WP:ONUS, the essay would be followed (even by editors who are not aware of this essay).
Yes. Does that mean we are in agreement that the word "weaponization" is a fair word to use?

Where is Matt? (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you did that I don't think anyone would be bringing up NPA.
So you want to functionally replace WP:ONUS with this essay?
I don't think I've ever heard "weaponization" as a fair characterization of "follow in good faith"

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote specifically in the talk page my proposal for changing WP:ONUS. It is to rewrite the sentence as The responsibility for achieving consensus for removal of content that passes WP:V, and is not in violation of WP:BLP, is on those seeking to remove the disputed content.

But it doesn't matter any more. I have been WP:CENSORED from that talk page in an act that I feel constitutes an abuse of administrative privileges. Where is Matt? (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You then muddied the waters significantly which is why so many people have asked you for clarification. I will leave you to sort out your admin issues in peace. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability) for IDHT.

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 ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Where is Matt? (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The (involved) blocking administrator is abusing their administrative tools to limit discussion in a talk page by an editor they disagree with.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. – bradv 18:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Where is Matt? (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I haven't violated any rules or guidelines. I did not violate WP:NPA. I was blocked for posting content that made people uncomfortable. Sometimes it's good to challenge the status quo.

Decline reason:

Perhaps so, but for the time being, you get to edit anything on WIkipedia other than WT:V. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Where is Matt? (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is a clear consensus against my proposal in the talk page that I am currently blocked from editing, so I won't engage in that discussion any more.

Decline reason:

Okay, so that means there is no need to remove the block from that page. You are already free to edit literally every other page on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Banana Republic per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Banana Republic. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Spicy (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]